On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:07:40 +0000
<tudor.amba...@microchip.com> wrote:
> >
> >> #define QSPI_IFR_TFRTYP_MASK GENMASK(13, 12)
> >> #define QSPI_IFR_TFRTYP_TRSFR_READ (0 << 12)
> >> #define QSPI_IFR_TFRTYP_TRSFR_READ_MEM (1 << 12)
> >
> > Looks like the read/write flag is on bit 13. Can we just add
>
> for sama5d2 only
Feel free to prefix macros with the SoC name to make it clear:
#define QSPI_IFR_SAMA5D2_WRITE_TRSFR BIT(13)
>
> >
> > #define QSPI_IFR_TFRTYP_TRSFR_WRITE BIT(13)
> >
> > and drop all others def? This way the implementation is consistent
> > between sam9x60 and sama5d2.
>
> BIT(13) has no meaning for sam9x60. I can drop the macros with zero value for
> sama5d2 in a separate patch.
> >
> >> +#define QSPI_IFR_APBTFRTYP_READ BIT(24)
And this one would be
define QSPI_IFR_SAM9X60_READ_TRSFR BIT(24)
> >>
> >> /* Bitfields in QSPI_SMR (Scrambling Mode Register) */
> >> #define QSPI_SMR_SCREN BIT(0)
> >> @@ -137,16 +144,37 @@
> >> #define QSPI_WPSR_WPVSRC(src) (((src) << 8) & QSPI_WPSR_WPVSRC)
> >>
> >>
> >> +/* Describes register values. */
> >> +struct atmel_qspi_cfg {
> >> + u32 icr;
> >> + u32 iar;
> >> + u32 ifr;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +struct atmel_qspi_caps;
> >> +
> >> struct atmel_qspi {
> >> void __iomem *regs;
> >> void __iomem *mem;
> >> struct clk *clk;
> >
> > Can we rename that on pclk?
>
> will rename it, together with the support for unnamed clock of sama5d2 in a
> separate
> patch. The dt-bindings patch that imposes "pclk" for sama5d2 should be
> separated too.
Sounds good.
