Messages in this thread | | | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: [spi-devel-general] Re: question on spi_bitbang | Date | Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:16:27 -0800 |
| |
On Friday 31 March 2006 10:19 am, Stephen Street wrote: > On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 10:11 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > I don't know how your particular hardware works, but if you have a > > real SPI controller it would probably be more natural to have your > > setup() function handle that mode register earlier, out of the main > > transfer loop ... unless that mode register is shared among all > > chipselects, in which case you'd use the setup_transfer() call for > > that, inside the transfer loop. (That call hasn't yet been merged > > into the mainline kernel yet; it's in the MM tree.) > > > Is setup_transfer() a change to framework API or just the bit_bang > driver?
Just bitbang.
> > The chipselect() call should only affect the chipselect signal and, > > when you're activating a chip, its initial clock polarity. Though > > if you're not using the latest from the MM tree, that's also your > > hook for ensuring that the SPI mode is set up right. > > Ditto?
Ditto. Though it should also be OK, come to think of it, to keep doing SPI mode selection in chipselect(); that shouldn't break.
- Dave
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |