On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 13:53 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > On Thursday 31 January 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:19:11 -0800 > > David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > + while (!(read_STAT(drv_data) & BIT_STAT_SPIF)) > > > + cpu_relax(); > > > > I'd suggest that this commonly-occurring code sequence be implemented in a > > standalone function. > > The bitmask to check can be a parameter too, as well as the > termination result after the mask. That will allow other loops > to get properly limited too -- e.g. wait till RXS or TXS clears, > not just SPIF getting set. >
Before SPIF getting set, we do wait for RXS or TXS clears in the code, right? > > > That'll probably produce less code and you can also > > add a timeout+printk+BUG (or whatever) to that function, rather than just > > mysteriously locking up if something goes wrong. I will pull out these things to a generic standalone function later. Thanks a lot -Bryan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ spi-devel-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
