[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Use DIV_ROUND_UP at appropriate places

[Richard Retanubun]

On 14/06/13 09:09 AM, Axel Lin wrote:
> 2013/6/14 Jagan Teki<jagannadh.teki at gmail.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> IMHO:
>> Can you please use the proper commit header prefix.
>>
>> I am just sharing my thoughts, ignore this if you know it already.
>> I followed below syntax.
>> "<main_module>:<sub_module>:<sub_sub_module>:<COMMIT_HEADER>"
>>
>> Ex: for this commit (seems like this commit changes two drivers)
>> spi: cf_qspi | mxc_spi: Use DIV_ROUND_UP at appropriate places
>
> This does not scale.
> What if a (trivial) patch touches 10 drivers?
Depends how trivial it is I guess. I can see benefits to both approaches.

This one is simple enough that I am okay if it is grouped.

Just for my own education, how do I correctly ACK just the part I know
(mcf_qspi in this case) in a grouped patch?
Is there a way to automate my "Signed-off-by:" via e-mail?

-- Richard Retanubun
>
>>
>> if you send same changes individually.
>> spi: cf_qspi: Use DIV_ROUND_UP at appropriate places
>> spi: mxc_spi: Use DIV_ROUND_UP at appropriate places
>
> I was thinking doing so may add maintainer's burden. (well for this
> case with 2 patches, it's not a problem)
> But since you prefer sending a fix per driver, I'll resend the patches.
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Axel Lin<axel.lin at ingics.com>  wrote:
>>> This change slightly improves readability.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin<axel.lin at ingics.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/spi/cf_qspi.c | 2 +-
>>>   drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c | 6 +++---
>>>   2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/cf_qspi.c b/drivers/spi/cf_qspi.c
>>> index a37ac4e..06bcf91 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/spi/cf_qspi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/cf_qspi.c
>>> @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ int spi_xfer(struct spi_slave *slave, unsigned int bitlen, const void *dout,
>>>          volatile qspi_t *qspi = dev->regs;
>>>          u8 *txbuf = (u8 *)dout;
>>>          u8 *rxbuf = (u8 *)din;
>>> -       u32 count = ((bitlen / 8) + (bitlen % 8 ? 1 : 0));
>>
>> Was this equivalent to  (bitlen + 7) / 8 ?
>
> Yes. And that is the point of this patch ( to handle divide-round-up
> in a uniform way).
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Jagan.