[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150805124412.GN20873@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 13:44:12 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...il.com>
Cc: "R, Vignesh" <vigneshr@...com>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Huang Shijie <b32955@...escale.com>,
MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] spi: introduce flag for memory mapped read
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 02:40:01PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 5 August 2015 at 13:50, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > As far as I can tell you want to set a per spi_message flag saying that
> > the message is a flash read command? If that's what this is trying to
> > do then why do you need to set the flag at all? If the message is in a
> > clearly defined format and it's more efficient to use this mmap mode
> > then surely the driver can just recognise that the format is approprate
> > and switch into mmap mode without being explicitly told - I'm not clear
> > what the flag adds here.
> ehm, the read command is just one byte.
> I don't think sending 03 or other random byte as the first byte of a
> SPI transfer can be used as reliable detection that we are talking to
> a SPI flash memory.
Why care - if something is physically in the same format as a flash read
command how would a device be able to tell that it wasn't actually a
flash read command? The signals sent on the bus are going to be
identical anyway.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists