Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ad7949: use spi_is_bpw_supported()

[David Lechner]

On 6/11/25 11:55 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:21:56 -0500
> David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/11/25 10:15 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:04:58AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:  
>>>> Use spi_is_bpw_supported() instead of directly accessing spi->controller  
>>>> ->bits_per_word_mask. bits_per_word_mask may be 0, which implies that  
>>>> 8-bits-per-word is supported. spi_is_bpw_supported() takes this into
>>>> account while spi_ctrl_mask == SPI_BPW_MASK(8) does not.  
>>>   
>>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/c8b8a963-6cef-4c9b-bfef-dab2b7bd0b0f@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/  
>>>
>>> Reported-by yourself. I'm wondering if the Closes adds a value in this case.
>>> Otherwise I can do the same to maybe 10% of my patches, for instance. But
>>> I don't think I put Closes tag on whatever improvement potential bug fix
>>> I do report (read: notice) myself.  
>>
>> I included it so that Da Xue will know that this has been resolved and
>> doesn't need to do anything more. Normally I would have not included
>> it though.
> 
> If I followed the discussion correctly does this need a fixes tag?

I supposed it doesn't hurt. It could be possible that someone tries to
use an older stable kernel with a SPI controller that didn't set the
flags, in which case there could be a problem.

Fixes: 0b2a740b424e ("iio: adc: ad7949: enable use with non 14/16-bit controllers")

> 
>>
>>>   
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  
>>>
>>> Code wise LGTM,
>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>   
>>
>