[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spi-devel-general] [PATCH] TXx9 SPI controller driver

To: Atsushi Nemoto <>
Subject: Re: [spi-devel-general] [PATCH] TXx9 SPI controller driver
From: David Brownell <>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:09:51 -0700
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=2pttBnj2s/3czFRcw5M0KutAyj3EP1eMxdwwWKRHXHXd/BXHCCicBYHpV0R44M/Al7bDryWGcI//BzDWp884YcHkXB+Wkhr+mTzMKux3eJ9WOy06duYjxYXObtgQr7FG0o72Mk9p70BtJipeu71hMDy5HbZxtrUJv7caNKNUQaM= ;
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <>
User-agent: KMail/1.9.6
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:

> Thank you for excellent review!  I'll look at each comments surely
> will update the driver but it may take a few days.

That's fine.

> For now, I'm quite sure your patch is OK for me except for one thing:
> > + * spi_tx99.c - TXx9 SPI controller driver.
> Name it spi_txx9.c, please ;)

Sorry, typo!  ... please fix when you resubmit.

> And for mmiowb() issue, I put it just only I was not sure whether
> gpio_set_value() guarantee I/O barrier.  Now I see i2c-gpio.c, etc. do
> not have such barriers.  I will remove these barriers and fix platform
> gpio codes.

I don't think this is a case where there'd be a benefit to
allowing non-barriered implementations, and thus requiring
all portable code to include platform-neutral I/O barriers.
I don't know that such neutral primitives actually exist...

I'll update the GPIO docs to make that clear, unless you
have some strong argument to the contrary.

- Dave

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>