On 02/04/2019 04:16 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 10:10:21 +0000 > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> + >> +static void atmel_qspi_sam9x60_write_regs(const struct atmel_qspi *aq, >> + const struct spi_mem_op *op, >> + const struct atmel_qspi_cfg *cfg) >> +{ >> + /* Clear pending interrupts */ >> + (void)readl_relaxed(aq->regs + QSPI_SR); >> + >> + /* Set QSPI Instruction Frame registers */ >> + writel_relaxed(cfg->iar, aq->regs + QSPI_IAR); >> + if (op->data.dir == SPI_MEM_DATA_IN) >> + writel_relaxed(cfg->icr, aq->regs + QSPI_RICR); >> + else >> + writel_relaxed(cfg->icr, aq->regs + QSPI_ICR); > > Can you use WICR here (even if ICR == WICR)?
yes, good catch. > >> + writel_relaxed(cfg->ifr, aq->regs + QSPI_IFR); >> +} > > Hm, so the only difference we have is the RICR vs ICR reg and the > APBTFRTYP_READ vs SAMA5D2_WRITE_TRSFR bit. Not sure it deserves > creating 2 hooks for that. Can we have something like ->has_ricr in > the caps and then have an if/else block directly in > atmel_qspi_set_cfg()? > Correct. It is a cost of an extra if, I tried to avoid it. I like it better with these two hooks, but if you have a strong opinion I'll do it, just confirm it again. Thanks, ta
