[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <baa286ca-3388-4604-9bc3-233c1fc77c42@baylibre.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 15:10:54 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Nuno Sá
<nuno.sa@...log.com>, Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>,
Martin Sperl <kernel@...tin.sperl.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/8] spi: dt-bindings: spi-peripheral-props: add
spi-offloads property
On 5/26/24 10:45 AM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 09:28:54AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
>> * A is the one we need to figure out. I'm proposing that the PWM consumer
>> should be whatever kind of composite device node we come up with that
>> also solves the issue described below about where does the CRC checker
>> (or whatever) go. I think we are in agreement here at least on the point
>> that it doesn't belong in the SPI controller node?
>
> To be clear, you're saying that we agree that the CRC checker doesnt
> belong in the SPI controller node, right?
Yes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists