From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88646140E25; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 20:12:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709755932; cv=none; b=f3ndk0dWm6D3rh8BwU2sko9iSnYOSrua8MohPDdtoltsPqjz1Hbox8ejyD25XKlLhSzMLIFGagxzmJMadw1YvgckzLGdkEvQ9SI9cxUQE6ESBwSNdZo9qS8YGhHoAOrh/yyjuCtAcQu178HC2FzEo3rHx0QbpmmXbwszeYNFYpY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709755932; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Bvy6rY8w+1vMChBQ7NK2oz9a9xIKn6UQ0LHrxARu3fI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=sMGV4bcjEWdqpX0TZ9UGTAoGZomhhmvio0y9i4Wt4cnhkIJax60UyhJAtn+8028jPFT/nU9Sz0zRNWxvnF6uNs7Wb+0TbXg96n8x7gCExmWWy9a/45apLnVDhZMIeoHGeRA3ULmXiBaUqsv2MUxX2wN8L1lCmNBUOxrgsKT5cHU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=W2Df2c/H; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="W2Df2c/H" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1709755930; x=1741291930; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Bvy6rY8w+1vMChBQ7NK2oz9a9xIKn6UQ0LHrxARu3fI=; b=W2Df2c/H9BGFSE7cwm05Aktbu96MGlKuYkixyyh+TSVnfkTkf6L3nXIx TAbIYzsNd1sXmlNDo9yBhivsScODy2DCAoih1NOUTCOOfpN7eqHKkCB8N 54XhWMNoZCYxPwX/tf42AdjS7SDAO+clnWMaS9fDyh35T7GKi/1jIUBQi aGiKzSCxuPQGy9iO/GT8nv67TFb6MLdcoxHijUYGgWfbpTpZaVRRRgEdP EJiilU7R2Uz/mu00KZbbcx8L8GKBObsFanmnCs1HxSlO5wxqiNjrMMkzf mTg2OVMi8ra7H3+VszR5tPdwSEva+inVQz1lgUT6L+vnl7ejVE8pdPY76 g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11005"; a="21915606" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,209,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="21915606" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Mar 2024 12:12:09 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11005"; a="914188488" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,209,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="914188488" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Mar 2024 12:12:08 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rhxcU-0000000AMJf-2uWY; Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:12:06 +0200 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 22:12:06 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Mark Brown Cc: linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] spi: Fix multiple issues with Chip Select variables and comments Message-ID: References: <20240306160114.3471398-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20240306160114.3471398-4-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <32c04b04-17c1-40f6-ad57-6c18e47f4842@sirena.org.uk> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32c04b04-17c1-40f6-ad57-6c18e47f4842@sirena.org.uk> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 06:08:43PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 05:59:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > There are the following issues with the current code: > > - inconsistent use of 0xFF and -1 for invalid chip select pin > > - inconsistent plain or BIT() use > > - wrong types used for last_cs_* fields > > - wrong multi-line comment style > > - misleading or hard-to-understand comments > > > > Fix all of these here. > > Please don't do this, as covered in submitting-patches.rst submit one > change per patch. This makes it much easier to review things. Fine by me, consider this patch as RFC to understand if we want to have this or not in general. I will rework it, if the idea is acceptable. If you are fine on the first two, perhaps they can be applied first. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko