[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160626125717.GQ28202@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 13:57:17 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Adrien Schildknecht <adrien+dev@...ischi.me>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] spi: of: allow instantiating slaves without a driver
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 02:53:31PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 26 June 2016 at 14:45, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > No, there's other things like figuring out which controller to bind to
> > that need to be taken into consideration.
> Why do you care? So long as you name the CS that is available on
> connector with the same pinout same on all boards you can target the
> slave regardless of the controller it's attached to.
That would be a binding for the connector which is the big missing bit
here - it's not clear that such a limited connector description would be
a good idea.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists