[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yw1xmvsbuqob.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:51:00 +0000
From: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To: Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Yang\, Wenyou" <Wenyou.Yang@...el.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] spi: atmel: improve internal vs gpio chip-select choice
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com> writes:
> Hi Mans,
>
> I've tried to apply your patch on a next-20160112 branch to test it but it
> failed. I've also looked at the for-next branch of the SPI sub-system git
> tree.
>
> It seems that one issue occurred within a chunk patching the atmel_spi_setup()
> function. Please see below.
>
> Le 11/01/2016 17:01, Mans Rullgard a écrit :
> [...]
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c b/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
>> index 08cbb3e43c76..d4a806e24060 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
> [...]
>> @@ -1603,6 +1611,7 @@ static int atmel_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>> }
>>
>> asd->npcs_pin = npcs_pin;
>> + asd->use_cs_gpio = use_cs_gpio;
>> spi->controller_state = asd;
>> } else {
>> atmel_spi_lock(as);
> [...]
>
> There is no 'else' statement in the source code I'm looking at.
Sorry, I'll send a new patch against the correct base. I forgot I had
something else earlier in my local branch.
--
Måns Rullgård
Powered by blists - more mailing lists