[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201203094739.GB4700@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:47:39 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "Ardelean, Alexandru" <alexandru.Ardelean@...log.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"Bogdan, Dragos" <Dragos.Bogdan@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] spi: Add SPI_NO_TX/RX support
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 08:20:57AM +0000, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > > @@ -43,5 +43,7 @@
> > > > #define SPI_TX_OCTAL 0x2000 /* transmit with 8 wires */
> > > > #define SPI_RX_OCTAL 0x4000 /* receive with 8 wires */
> > > > #define SPI_3WIRE_HIZ 0x8000 /* high impedance turnaround
> > */
> > > > +#define SPI_NO_TX 0x10000 /* no transmit wire */
> > > > +#define SPI_NO_RX 0x20000 /* no receive wire */
> > > Is it really material for uAPI?
> > > Perhaps we may have something like
> > > SPI_MODE_USER_MASK in uAPI and
> > > in internal headers
> Hmm, in a way this could make sense for some SPIDEVs as well, to set these flags and get an error if they try to TX with the NO_TX flag set.
> Not really sure about this.
> Initially I mechanically added these here as an inertia to the previous patch which is just unifying the headers.
> Any other opinions? Thoughts?
> Mark?
spidev is hacky at the best of times... It *is* probably better to only
have the usefully mainpulable modes exposed in uapi and then define the
rest internally though.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists