Re: [RFC net-next 15/15] net: lora: Add Semtech SX1301
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Date: 2018-07-02 16:13:36
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-spi, lkml
On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 01:08:04PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+static void sx1301_radio_spi_set_cs(struct spi_device *spi, bool enable) +{ + int ret; + + dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "setting SPI CS to %s\n", enable ? "1" : "0"); + + if (enable) + return; + + ret = sx1301_radio_set_cs(spi->controller, enable); + if (ret) + dev_warn(&spi->dev, "failed to write CS (%d)\n", ret); +}
So we never disable chip select?
+ if (tx_buf) {
+ ret = sx1301_write(ssx->parent, ssx->regs + REG_RADIO_X_ADDR, tx_buf ? tx_buf[0] : 0);This looks confused. We're in an if (tx_buf) block but there's a use of the ternery operator that appears to be checking if we have a tx_buf?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ if (ret) { + dev_err(&spi->dev, "SPI radio address write failed\n"); + return ret; + } + + ret = sx1301_write(ssx->parent, ssx->regs + REG_RADIO_X_DATA, (tx_buf && xfr->len >= 2) ? tx_buf[1] : 0); + if (ret) { + dev_err(&spi->dev, "SPI radio data write failed\n"); + return ret; + }
This looks awfully like you're coming in at the wrong abstraction layer and the hardware actually implements a register abstraction rather than a SPI one so you should be using regmap as the abstraction.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ if (rx_buf) { + ret = sx1301_read(ssx->parent, ssx->regs + REG_RADIO_X_DATA_READBACK, &rx_buf[xfr->len - 1]); + if (ret) { + dev_err(&spi->dev, "SPI radio data read failed\n"); + return ret; + } + }
For a read we never set an address?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+static void sx1301_radio_setup(struct spi_controller *ctrl) +{ + ctrl->mode_bits = SPI_CS_HIGH | SPI_NO_CS;
This controller has no chip select but we provided a set_cs operation?