+Tom, Simon,
On 28/07/21 08:50PM, Bin Meng wrote:
> When slave drivers don't set the max_read_size, the spi-mem should
> directly use data.nbytes and not limit to any size. But current
> logic will limit to the max_write_size.
With the push towards using DM, do we really need to maintain the nodm
version anymore? Are there any users left? If there are, I think they
should migrate to using DM instead of trying to fix depreciated code.
Thoughts?
>
> This commit mirrors the same changes in the dm version done in
> commit 535b1fdb8e5e ("spi: spi-mem: Fix read data size issue").
>
> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> drivers/spi/spi-mem-nodm.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem-nodm.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem-nodm.c
> index a228c808c7..77ddb19a9f 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem-nodm.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem-nodm.c
> @@ -93,12 +93,14 @@ int spi_mem_adjust_op_size(struct spi_slave *slave,
> if (slave->max_write_size && len > slave->max_write_size)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - if (op->data.dir == SPI_MEM_DATA_IN && slave->max_read_size)
> - op->data.nbytes = min(op->data.nbytes,
> - slave->max_read_size);
> - else if (slave->max_write_size)
> + if (op->data.dir == SPI_MEM_DATA_IN) {
> + if (slave->max_read_size)
> + op->data.nbytes = min(op->data.nbytes,
> + slave->max_read_size);
> + } else if (slave->max_write_size) {
> op->data.nbytes = min(op->data.nbytes,
> slave->max_write_size - len);
> + }
>
> if (!op->data.nbytes)
> return -EINVAL;
> --
> 2.25.1
>
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.
