[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZT9tyDEBqwqv26O8@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:48:08 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc: "Stoll, Eberhard" <eberhard.stoll@...tron.de>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Eberhard Stoll <estl@....net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"Schrempf, Frieder" <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>,
Amit Kumar Mahapatra <amit.kumar-mahapatra@....com>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>,
Leonard Göhrs <l.goehrs@...gutronix.de>,
Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: AW: [PATCH 1/4] spi: Add parameter for clock to rx delay
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 04:45:25PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:46:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> > So, to me sounds like device tree source issue. I.e. you need to provide
> > different DT(b)s depending on the platform (and how it should be).
> > The cleanest solution (as I see not the first time people I trying quirks like
> > this to be part of the subsystems / drivers) is to make DT core (OF) to have
> > conditionals or boot-time modifications allowed.
>
> > This, what you are doing, does not scale and smells like an ugly hack.
>
> No, this seems like an entirely reasonable thing to have - it's just a
> property of the device, we don't need to add a DT property for it, and
> the maximum speed that the device can run at is going to vary depending
> on the ability of the controller to control the sampling point.
>
> As people have been saying there's a particularly clear case for this
> with SPI flash which is probed at runtime and is readily substituted at
> the hardware level.
So, then the question is what does DT _actually_ describes?
If we have an autoprobe of something that doesn't work on platform A and works
on platform B, shouldn't these platforms have to have distinguishable DTs?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists