Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] spi: tegra210-quad: Add support for internal DMA

[Jon Hunter]

On 16/04/2025 12:57, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya wrote:

...

> > @@ -1384,41 +1419,43 @@ static irqreturn_t 
> > handle_dma_based_xfer(struct tegra_qspi *tqspi)
> >       unsigned int total_fifo_words;
> >       unsigned long flags;
> >       long wait_status;
> > -    int err = 0;
> > +    int num_errors = 0;
> >       if (tqspi->cur_direction & DATA_DIR_TX) {
> >           if (tqspi->tx_status) {
> > -            dmaengine_terminate_all(tqspi->tx_dma_chan);
> > -            err += 1;
> > -        } else {
> > +            if (tqspi->tx_dma_chan)
> > +                dmaengine_terminate_all(tqspi->tx_dma_chan);
> > +            num_errors++;
> > +        } else if (tqspi->tx_dma_chan) {
> >               wait_status = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
> >                   &tqspi->tx_dma_complete, QSPI_DMA_TIMEOUT);
> >               if (wait_status <= 0) {
> >                   dmaengine_terminate_all(tqspi->tx_dma_chan);
> >                   dev_err(tqspi->dev, "failed TX DMA transfer\n");
> > -                err += 1;
> > +                num_errors++;
> what do you do with incrementing this local num_errors ?
> I don't see any post processing .
> Also all are are mutually exclusive due to if/else, not sequential. So 
> could not get any specific usage.

This is really legacy code and yes I am not too thrilled with it either. 
At the same time this change is simply making the variable name a bit 
more clear. It is not critical that this is changed as part of this 
patch, but does not hurt either. I don't have strong feelings on this.

Jon

--
nvpublic