mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Bert Vermeulen <bert@biot.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	linux-spi <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: rb4xx: Fix set_cs logic.
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:09:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150421110958.GH22845@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55362E02.3070309@biot.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1201 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:01:22PM +0200, Bert Vermeulen wrote:
> On 04/21/2015 11:46 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> >> No, the enable parameter *should* refer to chip select assertion (see
> >> how we handle GPIO chip selects).  However it's possible that this
> >> device has an inverted chip select and should be registered with the
> >> SPI_CS_HIGH flag?

> > It's logic level:

> >  * @set_cs: set the logic level of the chip select line.  May be called
> >  *          from interrupt context.

> Right It's the implementation which doesn't really make sense IMHO: it
> always inverts the "enable" parameter (unless SPI_CS_HIGH is set), in
> keeping with the default active-low.

The default chip select is active low so an enebled chip select is low.

> So the docs are right, but "enable" doesn't match what it does. Chip select
> assertion would be a better API here. Is it worth fixing?

I suspect it's going to cause more breakage than it fixes with people
upstreaming things to change the sense of the paramter betwen kernel
versions - renaming the parameter to be clearer is probably about as
good as it gets.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

      reply	other threads:[~2015-04-21 11:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-20 13:53 Bert Vermeulen
2015-04-20 20:37 ` Mark Brown
2015-04-21  9:46   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-04-21 11:01     ` Bert Vermeulen
2015-04-21 11:09       ` Mark Brown [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150421110958.GH22845@sirena.org.uk \
    --to=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=bert@biot.com \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®