lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] spi: convert drivers to use bits_per_word_mask
    On 07/09/2013 09:47 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
    >> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-xilinx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-xilinx.c
    >> index e1d7696..f321bf9 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi-xilinx.c +++
    >> b/drivers/spi/spi-xilinx.c @@ -232,21 +232,6 @@ static int
    >> xilinx_spi_setup_transfer(struct spi_device *spi, return 0; }
    >>
    >> -static int xilinx_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi) -{ - /*
    >> always return 0, we can not check the number of bits. - * There
    >> are cases when SPI setup is called before any driver is - *
    >> there, in that case the SPI core defaults to 8 bits, which we -
    >> * do not support in some cases. But if we return an error, the -
    >> * SPI device would not be registered and no driver can get hold
    >> of it - * When the driver is there, it will call SPI setup again
    >> with the - * correct number of bits per transfer. - * If a
    >> driver setups with the wrong bit number, it will fail when - *
    >> it tries to do a transfer - */ - return 0; -} - static void
    >> xilinx_spi_fill_tx_fifo(struct xilinx_spi *xspi) { u8 sr; @@
    >> -377,7 +362,6 @@ struct spi_master *xilinx_spi_init(struct device
    >> *dev, struct resource *mem, xspi->bitbang.chipselect =
    >> xilinx_spi_chipselect; xspi->bitbang.setup_transfer =
    >> xilinx_spi_setup_transfer; xspi->bitbang.txrx_bufs =
    >> xilinx_spi_txrx_bufs; - xspi->bitbang.master->setup =
    >> xilinx_spi_setup; init_completion(&xspi->done);
    >>
    >> if (!request_mem_region(mem->start, resource_size(mem),
    >>
    >
    > This part of this patch is breaking xilinx spi driver because when
    > spi_bitbang_start is called it goes through some if else... and
    > because bitbang->txrx_bufs is defined it end up in this code } else
    > if (!master->setup) { return -EINVAL; }
    >
    > Probably the best solution is just revert this part of patch. Mark:
    > What do you think?

    Hmm. Why is master->setup required by the bitbang driver, if it's
    legal (i.e. the code works) to implement it just by doing nothing?


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-07-10 23:39    [W:3.382 / U:0.428 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site