linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] spi: dts: sun4i: Add support for inter-word wait cycles using the SPI Wait Clock Register

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:52:12 +0100
From:	Marcus Weseloh <mweseloh42@...il.com>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Mailing List, Arm" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] spi: dts: sun4i: Add support for inter-word wait
 cycles using the SPI Wait Clock Register

2015-12-13 22:07 GMT+01:00 Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>:
[...]
>> There is one review comment that I didn't address: Rob Herring suggested
>> that this should be in the core-binding rather than in sun4i. I checked
>> many of the hardware manuals of other SPI drivers and it looks to me like
>> this hardware based inter-word delay is a feature that not many SPI
>> controllers offer. And the SPI core currently has no way to control an
>> inter-word delay, only inter-message. So I would like to propose this again
>> as a sun4i binding, as it targets a sun4i (or sunxi?) specific hardware
>> feature.
>
> Only a few of them justify to have this in the framework. There's a
> bunch of controllers that support such a feature, and it definitely
> belongs in the core.
>
> The point of the framework is not to be the least common denominator,
> it's about having as much code in common as possible, and it
> definitely falls into that category.

Ok, now I understand. I did indeed think that the SPI core is more
like a least common denominator. So I will add the property to the
spi-core binding, as initially requested by Rob and send a v3.

Thanks for the review, Maxime!

Marcus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/