From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Piotr Bugalski Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] spi: Add QuadSPI driver for Atmel SAMA5D2 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:31:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20180618162124.21749-1-bugalski.piotr@gmail.com> <20180618162124.21749-2-bugalski.piotr@gmail.com> <20180619151506.GG11230@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180619151506.GG11230@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Piotr Bugalski , linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Boris Brezillon , Marek Vasut , Richard Weinberger , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Nicolas Ferre , Alexandre Belloni , Cyrille Pitchen , Tudor Ambarus , Piotr Bugalski List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Mark, Thank you very much for quick answer. On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 06:21:23PM +0200, Piotr Bugalski wrote: > >> +static int atmel_qspi_adjust_op_size(struct spi_mem *mem, struct spi_mem_op *op) >> +{ >> + return 0; >> +} > > If this can be empty should we adjust the callers to allow it to just be > omitted? > If I remember well some commits ago spi-mem required even empty adjust_op_size. Now it seems unnecessary, but I forgot to remove the code. I will fix it in next version. >> +static int atmel_qspi_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> +{ >> + struct spi_controller *ctrl = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); >> + struct atmel_qspi *aq = spi_controller_get_devdata(ctrl); >> + >> + qspi_writel(aq, QSPI_CR, QSPI_CR_QSPIDIS); >> + clk_disable_unprepare(aq->clk); >> + >> + spi_unregister_controller(ctrl); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} > > You should unregister the controller before disabling the hardware, > otherwise something could come in and try to start an operation on the > controller (or already be running one) while the hardware is disabled > which might blow up. > Sure, deinit should be done in reverse order of init, you are perfectly right, just my mistake. I'll fix it in next version. Best Regards, Piotr