linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] spi: add spi multiplexing functions for dt

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAF3==ivhZ1AJtNqEmzQpmgy4r0NSz36THe3xADaARsDRbv1vVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:54:25 +0000
From:   Ben Whitten <ben.whitten@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] spi: add spi multiplexing functions for dt

On 24 January 2018 at 14:54, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:01:55PM +0000, Ben Whitten wrote:
>> On 23 January 2018 at 11:11, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> > level.  Things that have their own transfer function would be better off
>> > just being first order SPI controllers I think so that they get access
>> > to everything the framework offers and can correctly advertise
>> > capabilities and so on.
>
>> This runs as a very simple fake SPI controller per bus that the mux is
>> controlling. Having this custom transfer message allowed me to pop
>> in the way my device exposes the downstream devices, through its
>> regmap.
>
> Which like I say is a problem - if your device (which just sounds like a
> SPI controller) has different capabilities and constraints to the parent
> then client drivers won't see that.

Ahh yes I see what you mean, agreed. I have changed my device to be a full
controller.
Thanks for the review.

Ben