On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:20:05PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > #define SPFI_CONTROL_GET_DMA BIT(9) > -#define SPFI_CONTROL_SE BIT(8) > +#define SPFI_CONTROL_SE BIT(8) > +#define SPFI_CONTROL_TX_RX BIT(1)
Random reindent of _SE there?
> + /*
> + * Disable SPFI for it not to interfere with
> + * pending transactions
> + */
> + spfi_writel(spfi, spfi_readl(spfi, SPFI_CONTROL)
> + & ~SPFI_CONTROL_SPFI_EN, SPFI_CONTROL);
> return 0;
The indentation on the second line of the write is very confusing, it
should be indented relative to the first line.
> + if (!list_is_last(&xfer->transfer_list, &master->cur_msg->transfers) &&
> + /*
> + * For duplex mode (both the tx and rx buffers are !NULL) the
> + * CMD, ADDR, and DUMMY byte parts of the transaction register
> + * should always be 0 and therefore the pending transfer
> + * technique cannot be used.
> + */
> + (xfer->tx_buf) && (!xfer->rx_buf) &&
> + (xfer->len <= SPFI_DATA_REQUEST_MAX_SIZE) && !is_pending) {
> + transact = (1 & SPFI_TRANSACTION_CMD_MASK) <<
This is again *really* hard to read - having the comment in the middle
of the condidional for the if statement, then indenting the code within
the if statement to the same depth is just super confusing.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
