[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <018ee235eabd420bb32f6acf57dfe121@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 17:32:13 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Mark Brown' <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: 'Eddie James' <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org" <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] spi: fsi: Reduce max transfer size to 8 bytes
From: Mark Brown
> Sent: 20 July 2021 14:13
>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 01:04:38PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
>
> > Having said that, you might want a loop in the driver so that
> > application requests for longer transfers are implemented
> > with multiple hardware requests.
>
> No, that's something that should be and indeed is done in the core -
> this isn't the only hardware out there with some kind of restriction on
> length.
Ah, ok, there is another loop before any 'users'.
> > I do also wonder why there is support in the main kernel sources
> > for hardware that doesn't actually exist.
>
> We encourage vendors to get support for their devices upstream prior to
> hardware availability so that users are able to run upstream when they
> get access to hardware, this means users aren't forced to run out of
> tree code needlessly and greatly eases deployment.
This one just seemed a bit premature.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists