[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVmSUh8yphZ4oPR=QYp5uMS9BXgPRVuwa19S9q7jWxxiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:23:37 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] spi: core: Fix logic mismatch in spi_master.set_cs()
Hi Mark,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:36:51PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
>> The documentation for spi_master.set_cs() says:
>>
>> assert or deassert chip select, true to assert
>>
>> i.e. its "enable" parameter uses assertion-level logic.
>> For SPI controller-based chip selects, active high chip selects must be
>> handled by the SPI master driver, if supported (some SPI controllers have
>> configurable chip select polarity).
>
> This also pushes the handling of CS_HIGH back out into the driver which
> doesn't seem like it's helping anything. Flipping the sense of enable
It depends: on hardware with separate register bits for chip select polarity
and chip select assertion it avoids having to invert the enable value a second
time.
> when calling set_cs() is probably OK though.
Just flipping the sense of enable still needs a documentation update.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists