Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m35-v6csp392006imm; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 23:45:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60kclM/AvFGVCHJ0DDHnL2W/d0rAvRyxeDHcrWZ8j+aB5PcoBPOqmgjFCB+ajdzEIUxTdqz X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:402:: with SMTP id 2-v6mr14455013ple.277.1538117111937; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 23:45:11 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1538117111; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=nJDNeeJZPo20mZUpvddh1AmJ6QnO3WKKxnZkaYBqk8Qw8tHl60aOoZYxGojAuVkjHd yR+ezMsm2xhKvBayzIR25ZR4GR5c2vhyxkKu8SniwDpHrDxTOxncPvVspI1naLiR5KMj SAWX3THFPOSFC4BtI/JlWvvFFhATKchX991JYvJZ6sKN9COSnhlspjg3QO/+g5vfTwYQ pfkcaeTWnuga7CQXB654Cwbc0hoJg97B51y9VUTZnBh2d1IICRwq3jhrG85TfK9Edjj0 rm24KowWgzq7Hpb7t1iqLSg7tSuHJUklIahnCl/fPBjbcfL6cssTHeap5FkJty8YuLUc qCFg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=7RJKCgQHBYR2C+EV8NxsED+dtQspc0AVx8Pn2/tf7QQ=; b=FXnPWMEocp/m6nD2Z9d5SsT9+q0cRsRL7oaWKc/pOWDqxtCkkvHhd11WURJPcVK7aV 4Obota8tj4ZZFoPDpFiUUfDKYj3Tcf2V9NhQH9NgvoLJabNZpWIb+nAiQi+I6Zmx2gFW /18ypkg6qqvQo37Ehzh7rwmPd/FzKVtUDGQHWk7BLRQmQeQtKtOREVAOtX7t/Bb7Nmk7 6a8Qq8Gk4XRyaowcEgnMlHoOvo4890PUryx02e2HfUKqGacheB6aLz1Z2Yy90Nbx1EPH MtaNWDHpWHkXTLkGOgVJrQMIpoz3Nl8WQCJ8Vl9oTnFmnwe+IdC4iOu0S1hlTv32bcF4 wVUQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r19-v6si4016509pgm.478.2018.09.27.23.44.56; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 23:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728921AbeI1NHA (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:07:00 -0400 Received: from mail.bootlin.com ([62.4.15.54]:43974 "EHLO mail.bootlin.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728717AbeI1NG6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:06:58 -0400 Received: by mail.bootlin.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id 04527208F4; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:44:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on mail.bootlin.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT, URIBL_BLOCKED shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.4.0 Received: from bbrezillon (unknown [176.187.87.154]) by mail.bootlin.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE14520711; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:44:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:44:31 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Chuanhua Han Cc: broonie@kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eha@deif.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] spi: spi-mem: Add the spi_set_xfer_bpw function Message-ID: <20180928084431.300b7bf9@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <20180921070628.35153-1-chuanhua.han@nxp.com> References: <20180921070628.35153-1-chuanhua.han@nxp.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Chuanhua, On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:06:26 +0800 Chuanhua Han wrote: > Before we add this spi_transfer to the spi_message chain table, we need > bits_per_word_mask based on spi_control to set the bits_per_word of > this spi_transfer. It's not clear to me what you're trying to fix/improve. Can you give more details on what the problem is? > > Signed-off-by: Chuanhua Han > --- > drivers/spi/spi-mem.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c > index eb72dba71d83..717e711c0952 100644 > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c > @@ -175,6 +175,41 @@ bool spi_mem_supports_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spi_mem_supports_op); > > +/** > + * spi_set_xfer_bpw() - Set the bits_per_word for each transfer based on > + * the bits_per_word_mask of the spi controller > + * @ctrl: the spi controller > + * @xfer: the spi transfer > + * > + * This function sets the bits_per_word for each transfer based on the spi > + * controller's bits_per_word_mask to improve the efficiency of spi transport. > + * > + * Return: 0 in case of success, a negative error code otherwise. > + */ > +int spi_set_xfer_bpw(struct spi_controller *ctlr, struct spi_transfer *xfer) > +{ > + if (!ctlr || !xfer) { > + dev_err(&ctlr->dev, > + "Fail to set bits_per_word for spi transfer\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + if (ctlr->bits_per_word_mask) { > + if (!(xfer->len % 4)) { > + if (ctlr->bits_per_word_mask & SPI_BPW_MASK(32)) > + xfer->bits_per_word = 32; > + } else if (!(xfer->len % 2)) { > + if (ctlr->bits_per_word_mask & SPI_BPW_MASK(16)) > + xfer->bits_per_word = 16; > + } else { > + xfer->bits_per_word = 8; > + } > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spi_set_xfer_bpw); Why is this function placed in spi-mem.c, and more importantly, why is it exported? > + > /** > * spi_mem_exec_op() - Execute a memory operation > * @mem: the SPI memory > @@ -252,6 +287,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op) > xfers[xferpos].tx_buf = tmpbuf; > xfers[xferpos].len = sizeof(op->cmd.opcode); > xfers[xferpos].tx_nbits = op->cmd.buswidth; > + spi_set_xfer_bpw(ctlr, &xfers[xferpos]); It's still unclear why you need to specify a bits_per_word value, but if this is needed, it's probably something you want to add to spi.c, when a message is queued. > spi_message_add_tail(&xfers[xferpos], &msg); > xferpos++; > totalxferlen++; > @@ -266,6 +302,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op) > xfers[xferpos].tx_buf = tmpbuf + 1; > xfers[xferpos].len = op->addr.nbytes; > xfers[xferpos].tx_nbits = op->addr.buswidth; > + spi_set_xfer_bpw(ctlr, &xfers[xferpos]); > spi_message_add_tail(&xfers[xferpos], &msg); > xferpos++; > totalxferlen += op->addr.nbytes; > @@ -276,6 +313,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op) > xfers[xferpos].tx_buf = tmpbuf + op->addr.nbytes + 1; > xfers[xferpos].len = op->dummy.nbytes; > xfers[xferpos].tx_nbits = op->dummy.buswidth; > + spi_set_xfer_bpw(ctlr, &xfers[xferpos]); > spi_message_add_tail(&xfers[xferpos], &msg); > xferpos++; > totalxferlen += op->dummy.nbytes; > @@ -291,6 +329,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op) > } > > xfers[xferpos].len = op->data.nbytes; > + spi_set_xfer_bpw(ctlr, &xfers[xferpos]); > spi_message_add_tail(&xfers[xferpos], &msg); > xferpos++; > totalxferlen += op->data.nbytes;