Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-06 Thread Grant Likely
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 04:17:05PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 03:22:08PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 07:08:55PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > >

RE: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-06 Thread Kukjin Kim
Grant Likely wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 03:22:08PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > > > > Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 07:08:55PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > > > Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Grant, Jassi and all, > >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-05 Thread Grant Likely
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 03:22:08PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > > Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 07:08:55PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > > Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Grant, Jassi and all, > > > > > > > > > > I will apply these 1 an

RE: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-05 Thread Kukjin Kim
Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Grant Likely wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 07:08:55PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Grant, Jassi and all, > > > > > > > > I will apply these 1 and 2 in my -fix tree for 3.0 with your acks. > > > > > > > Oops, this needs previ

RE: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-04 Thread Kukjin Kim
Grant Likely wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 07:08:55PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Grant, Jassi and all, > > > > > > I will apply these 1 and 2 in my -fix tree for 3.0 with your acks. > > > > > Oops, this needs previous 'cleanup spi platform specific code'

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-04 Thread Grant Likely
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 07:08:55PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > > Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Grant Likely > > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:29 AM, padma ve

[PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-04 Thread Padmavathi Venna
The existing macro fails for following scenarios. 1) S5P64X0 channel 1 2) S5PV210 channel 1 The FIFO data level supported in the above SoCs either 64 or 256 bytes depending on the channel. Because of this the TX_DONE is the 25 bit in the status register. The existing macro works for the following

RE: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-04 Thread Kukjin Kim
Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Grant Likely wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Grant Likely > wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:29 AM, padma venkat > wrote: > > >> > Hi Jassi, > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-04 Thread padma venkat
Hi Kukjin, On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Grant Likely > wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:29 AM, padma venkat > wrote: >> >> > Hi Jassi, >> >>

RE: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-04 Thread Kukjin Kim
Grant Likely wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:29 AM, padma venkat wrote: > >> > Hi Jassi, > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jassi Brar wrote: > >> >> On Fri

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-03 Thread Grant Likely
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:29 AM, padma venkat wrote: >> > Hi Jassi, >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jassi Brar >> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, padm

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-07-03 Thread Grant Likely
On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:29 AM, padma venkat wrote: > > Hi Jassi, > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jassi Brar > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, padma venkat wrote: > >>> Hi Tony, > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 20

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-06-30 Thread Jassi Brar
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:29 AM, padma venkat wrote: > Hi Jassi, > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jassi Brar wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, padma venkat wrote: >>> Hi Tony, >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Tony Nadackal wrote: Hi Padma, With regards to your pat

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-06-30 Thread padma venkat
Hi Jassi, On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, padma venkat wrote: >> Hi Tony, >> >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Tony Nadackal wrote: >>> Hi Padma, >>> With regards to your patch, even though one can check the tx done status >>> using the TX

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-06-30 Thread Jassi Brar
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, padma venkat wrote: > Hi Tony, > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Tony Nadackal wrote: >> Hi Padma, >> With regards to your patch, even though one can check the tx done status >> using the TX_DONE bit, the present macro itself would work perfectly fine if >> the

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-06-30 Thread padma venkat
Hi Tony, On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Tony Nadackal wrote: > Hi Padma, > With regards to your patch, even though one can check the tx done status > using the TX_DONE bit, the present macro itself would work perfectly fine if > the 'fifo_lvl_mask' is set properly. > For example in 6450 channel

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-06-30 Thread Jassi Brar
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:35 PM, padma venkat wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jassi Brar wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Padmavathi Venna >> wrote: >>> Fixed the bug in transmission status check for 64 bytes FIFO >>> level. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Padmavathi Venna

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-06-30 Thread padma venkat
Hi, On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Padmavathi Venna wrote: >> Fixed the bug in transmission status check for 64 bytes FIFO >> level. >> >> Signed-off-by: Padmavathi Venna >> --- >>  drivers/spi/spi_s3c64xx.c |    4 +--- >>  1 files changed

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-06-30 Thread Jassi Brar
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Padmavathi Venna wrote: > Fixed the bug in transmission status check for 64 bytes FIFO > level. > > Signed-off-by: Padmavathi Venna > --- >  drivers/spi/spi_s3c64xx.c |    4 +--- >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi_

[PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

2011-06-29 Thread Padmavathi Venna
Fixed the bug in transmission status check for 64 bytes FIFO level. Signed-off-by: Padmavathi Venna --- drivers/spi/spi_s3c64xx.c |4 +--- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi_s3c64xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi_s3c64xx.c index 795828b..8945e20 100644 --- a/