[PATCH] spi/pl022: compare bitwidth to enums

[Grant Likely]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Linus Walleij
<linus.ml.walleij at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/9/30 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at stericsson.com>:
>
>> The enums from <linux/amba/pl022.h> are actually off-by-one
>> since bitwidth 4 is defined as 0x03, causing weirdness when
>> we were trying out some 9-bit peripheral. Fix this by
>> comparing to the enum values rather than hardcoded values
>> and also fixing the enum to something reasonable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at stericsson.com>
>> (...)
>> -       if (chip_info->data_size <= 8) {
>> +       if (chip_info->data_size <= SSP_DATA_BITS_8) {
>>                dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "1 <= n <=8 bits per word\n");
>>                chip->n_bytes = 1;
>>                chip->read = READING_U8;
>>                chip->write = WRITING_U8;
>> -       } else if (chip_info->data_size <= 16) {
>> +       } else if (chip_info->data_size <= SSP_DATA_BITS_16) {
>
> I just realized that Kevin Wells patch actually patch away this problem
> so merge his patch and disregard this for the optimal solution.
>
>>  enum ssp_data_size {
>> -       SSP_DATA_BITS_4 = 0x03, SSP_DATA_BITS_5, SSP_DATA_BITS_6,
>> +       SSP_DATA_BITS_4 = 0x04, SSP_DATA_BITS_5, SSP_DATA_BITS_6,
>
> This is not good because this is used for default register
> settings too (I didn't notice, typical).

And it creates a 1:1 mapping of name to the same number.  Insane!
Just use the integer number directly.  :-)

>
> If anyone still wants a patch for older kernels I can provide a
> patch against 2.6.36-rc6 with just the first two hunks.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>



-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.