[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200226113610.GD4136@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:36:10 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Chuanhong Guo <gch981213@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rewrite mtk-quadspi spi-nor driver with spi-mem
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:31:33AM +0800, Chuanhong Guo wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:31 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> > You should should really only need 'spi-max-frequency' if the max freq
> > is less than the minimum of the host and device max freq.
> But current spi framework forces that a "spi-max-frequency" property
> is present. [0]
> Should we patch spi framework then?
That's one option, yes. As far as I can tell the bindings have always
required an explicit frequency specified in the bindings but I've no
idea why.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists