linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH V5 16/17] SPI: MIPS: lantiq: add FALCON spi driver

To: John Crispin <blogic@openwrt.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 16/17] SPI: MIPS: lantiq: add FALCON spi driver
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:20:32 +0800
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net, Thomas Langer <thomas.langer@lantiq.com>
In-reply-to: <4FC0DEEC.8050204@openwrt.org>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-id: linux-mips <linux-mips.eddie.linux-mips.org>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
References: <1337521579-1597-1-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <20120525233845.BD93C3E0BD2@localhost> <4FC0DEEC.8050204@openwrt.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:47:24 +0200, John Crispin <blogic@openwrt.org> wrote:
> 
> > What exactly does this mean?  How does it not support any other type
> > of SPI peripheral?  SPI is a really simple protocol, so what is it
> > about this hardware that prevents it being used with other SPI
> > hardware?
> >
> > I see a big state machine that appears to interpret the messages and
> > pretend to be an SPI slave instead of telling linux about the real
> > device.  /me wonders if it should this instead be a block device
> > driver?
> >
> 
> Thomas will need to comment on this part
> 
> >> +static int falcon_sflash_prepare_xfer(struct spi_master *master)
> >> +{
> >> +  return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int falcon_sflash_unprepare_xfer(struct spi_master *master)
> >> +{
> >> +  return 0;
> >> +}
> > Don't use empty hooks.  Just leave them uninitialized.  The core will
> > do the right thing.
> >
> 
> I was under the impression that the need for these 2 callbacks was
> removed in 3.5. As this patch flows via MIPS there would be a merge
> order problem making the kernel non bisectable
> 
> I am a bit confused. You keep ack'ing this driver and then commenting on
> it a few weeks later.... obsoleting the ACK ...

Hahah.  I receive a *lot* of email.  I can't remember what I reviewed
yesterday, let alone last week.  If I ack something, then add my ack
when you repost.  Otherwise I don't have any clues as to what I've
said in the past.

Also, I reserve the right to review all new versions of patches; that
doesn't invalidate the ack, but Ralf can decide whether to pick it up
and ask for follow-up changes, or to ask for another respin.

g.


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