On Tuesday 28 February 2017 10:36 PM, Rush, Jason A. wrote:
R, Vignesh wrote:
On 2/28/2017 8:38 PM, Rush, Jason A. wrote: [...]
This also works.
Marek - how do you feel about a patch series with the following:
- revert commit 57897c13de03ac0136d64641a3eab526c6810387 spi: cadence_qspi_apb: Use 32 bit indirect write transaction when possible
- revert commit b63b46313ed29e9b0c36b3d6b9407f6eade40c8f spi: cadence_qspi_apb: Use 32 bit indirect read transaction when possible
- Apply my slightly modified version of https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/693069/ (should I keep Vignesh as the signed-off?)
Depends on how much you have changed the code. If the change is significant then change the authorship to you and drop my signed-off. Else, keep the authorship and signed-off. If you are adding something new to the patch like adding code to make sure that only 32bit data reads are issued, then I suggest you to submit that change as separate patch.
Very minimal. Another commit changed a #define from CQSPI_REG_INDIRECTWR_START_MASK to CQSPI_REG_INDIRECTWR_START, so I had to modify the patch to drop the _MASK so it would apply. Other than that, it's identical in content.
In that case you will have to retain my authorship and signed-off by and add your signed-off by below that. Thanks!