On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:27:00PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 01:47:44PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > It's pointless to track the Tx overrun interrupts if Rx-only SPI > > transfer is issued. Similarly there is no need in handling the Rx > > overrun/underrun interrupts if Tx-only SPI transfer is executed. > > So lets unmask the interrupts only if corresponding SPI > > transactions are implied. > > My comments below. > > > Co-developed-by: Georgy Vlasov <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Georgy Vlasov <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <[email protected]> > > Cc: Ramil Zaripov <[email protected]> > > Cc: Alexey Malahov <[email protected]> > > Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <[email protected]> > > Cc: Paul Burton <[email protected]> > > Cc: Ralf Baechle <[email protected]> > > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> > > Cc: Allison Randal <[email protected]> > > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> > > Cc: Gareth Williams <[email protected]> > > Cc: Rob Herring <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > I think you really need to revisit Cc list in all patches (DT people hardly > interested in this one, though ones where properties are being used might be > point of interest). > > ... > > > /* Set the interrupt mask */ > > - spi_umask_intr(dws, SPI_INT_TXOI | SPI_INT_RXUI | SPI_INT_RXOI); > > + spi_umask_intr(dws, imr); >
> Can we rather do like this > > /* Set the interrupt mask */ > if (xfer->tx_buf) > imr |= SPI_INT_TXOI; > if (xfer->rx_buf) > imr |= SPI_INT_RXUI | SPI_INT_RXOI; > spi_umask_intr(dws, imr); > > ? > > (First block sets DMA, second one IRQ) I'd rather leave it as is. -Sergey > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > >
