From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755205AbeDCK0m (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 06:26:42 -0400 Received: from smtp59.i.mail.ru ([217.69.128.39]:56140 "EHLO smtp59.i.mail.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755121AbeDCK0k (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 06:26:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] spi: sun4i: restrict transfer length in PIO-mode To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai , Mark Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org References: <20180329185907.27281-1-ssuloev@orpaltech.com> <20180329185907.27281-3-ssuloev@orpaltech.com> <20180403081041.3ully6bcyfwx2cx6@flea> From: Sergey Suloev Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:26:34 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180403081041.3ully6bcyfwx2cx6@flea> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Authentication-Results: smtp59.i.mail.ru; auth=pass smtp.auth=ssuloev@orpaltech.com smtp.mailfrom=ssuloev@orpaltech.com X-7FA49CB5: 0D63561A33F958A5188B22A9F141C3BAA41A0CC64C343A0D9B6E4F23D92FC876725E5C173C3A84C30584FF81F342DA07ABBE6567769A2B66789C969B8F27C422C4224003CC836476C0CAF46E325F83A50BF2EBBBDD9D6B0F5D41B9178041F3E72623479134186CDE6BA297DBC24807EABDAD6C7F3747799A X-Mailru-Sender: C5364AD02485212F3ACDC11E67D84917C8011FBC0CD2CB1F14C027D6D47AC04F069BFC61DABEEB110841D3AAAB1726C63DDE9B364B0DF289264D2CD8C2503E8C22A194DADEED8EEDCA01A23BA9CD1BE7ED14614B50AE0675 X-Mras: OK Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/03/2018 11:10 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:59:03PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote: >> There is no need to handle 3/4 empty/full interrupts as the maximum >> supported transfer length in PIO mode is 64 bytes for sun4i-family >> SoCs. > That assumes that you'll be able to treat the FIFO full interrupt and > drain the FIFO before we have the next byte coming in. This would > require a real time system, and we're not in one of them. > > Maxime > > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel so you think we should still handle 3/4 FIFO full ?