[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <67fa5f94-886b-f09c-c93d-832e427ffec8@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 04:13:11 +0100
From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>
To: masonccyang@...c.com.tw
Cc: bbrezillon@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, juliensu@...c.com.tw,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com,
zhengxunli@...c.com.tw
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] spi: Add Renesas R-Car Gen3 RPC-IF SPI controller
driver
On 1/24/19 3:23 AM, masonccyang@...c.com.tw wrote:
> Hi Marek,
Hi,
>> "Marek Vasut" <marek.vasut@...il.com>
>> 2019/01/24 上午 09:54
>>
>>
>> > +#define RPC_CMNCR 0x0000 // R/W
>>
>> Is there any reason for using those horrible C++ comments ?
>
> By Mark's comments for the SPDX header needs to be C++ style and
> I patch the whole RPC driver comments using C++ style otherwise it looks
> messy.
I think the C++ comments should only be applied to the SPDX identifier,
maybe the header, but not the entire file.
>> [...]
>>
>> > +module_platform_driver(rpc_spi_driver);
>>
>> RPC is not a SPI controller, it's a SPI and HF controller.
>>
>> Also, how difficult will it be to add the HF support ?
>
> One of my customers needs RPC SPI driver for our company's
> Octal-Flash,MX25UW51245G.
> We don't have HF product and hope you could understanding.
I am worried that when we need to add RPC HF support (which is what all
boards but the D3 Draak use), we will have to rewrite the entire driver
and/or convert it to MFD and that would be a tremendous undertaking. I'd
prefer to have the driver ready for the HF addition before it's accepted
upstream.
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
Powered by blists - more mailing lists