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

[Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:29 AM, padma venkat <padma.kvr@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jassi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, padma venkat <padma.kvr@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Tony,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Tony Nadackal <tonykn@gmail.com> 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 1, the fifo_lvl_mask should be 0x1ff (for 9bits,
> >>>> 15:23), while even in your patch, it is wrongly set as 0x7f(only 7bits).
> >>>>
> >>>> Thus, if this fifo_lvl_mask was defined correctly, the existing macro would
> >>>> itself have worked.
> >>> Thanks for your comment.
> >>> I considered changing to the fifo_lvl_mask to 1ff as you mentioned.
> >>> But I  think that the fifo_lvl_mask reflects the actual FIFO capacity
> >>> in the SPI driver.
> >>> For the failing channels the FIFO trigger level is 64 bytes and so i
> >>> retained that value.
> >>> In the driver it polls till the FIFO capacity level otherwise it goes
> >>> for DMA.So if we keep
> >>> the FIFO level as 1ff when the actual capacity is 7f then it fails.
> >>>
> >>> Jassi what do you think about this?
> >>>
> >>
> >> 'fifo_lvl_mask' is h/w specific and can't be set for convenience.
> >>
> >> I don't have access to post-s3c64xx datasheets.
> >> Please check and reply if TX_DONE bit is at same offset for all
> >> channels of an SoC, because
> >> I suspect it's otherwise.
> >>
> > Yes. The TX_DONE bit is at the same offset for all the channels of an SoC.
> > in S5P64X0,S5PV210 and S5PV310 it is at offset 25.
> >
> 
> Then, Patches-1,2
> 
> Acked-by: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>

Are these bug fixes that should be in v3.0, or do I queue them up for v3.1?

g.