linux-kernel - Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH 2/3] spidev: Add DT binding example.

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]

Message-ID: <CAOMqctRQYsphKxaZXUae0KqAE5SnYZN5M3iPPGw_PKnnuh0W1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:51:12 +0200
From:	Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...il.com>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	Martin Sperl <kernel@...tin.sperl.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH 2/3] spidev: Add DT binding example.

On 26 April 2015 at 17:47, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
>> raspberry pi use-case. Where the board is specifically
>> designed for educational purposes and used with lots of
>> peripherals which are usually programmed from userspace
>> using e.g. python bindings for i2c-dev or spidev, for
>> such a setup we really want spidev to be loaded on the
>> spibus by default and we really do not have a proper
>> compatible for a child device.
>
> I'm not sure we're ignoring it, it just is the exact same use case
> than the whole spidev use case: people want to write SPI userspace
> drivers, the rpi really is not special here, except maybe for its user
> space code base, but it really boils down to the same issue.
>
>> And no having to use per device devicetree overlays
>> for this is not the answer, this needs to be really
>> really easy. With pre device-tree kernels this just
>> works, we should be able to match that ease of use
>> with devicetree.
>
> We do agree on that. We repeatedly told that the DT was not a good
> solution, overlays or not, and this is exactly one of the reasons.
>

Ok, so how about skipping the bindings altogether.

Just instantiate a spidev for each SPI bus and each CS the SPI core
knows of once spidev is loaded.

Thanks

Michal
--
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/