[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240530-unaltered-thong-a6e52519f101@spud>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 18:25:10 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
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 Wed, May 29, 2024 at 03:10:54PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> 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.
Okay, ye. We're on the same page then about that part.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists