From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031462AbbDXSRw (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:17:52 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:34374 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965326AbbDXSRu (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:17:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:17:45 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Jonatas Rech Cc: linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20150424181745.GG22845@sirena.org.uk> References: <1429111398-21444-1-git-send-email-jonatas.rech@datacom.ind.br> <20150418125556.GR26185@sirena.org.uk> <363371145.339730.1429715343024.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br> <20150422195746.GM22845@sirena.org.uk> <20150423180622.GC12637@datacom.ind.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uIEElZ5lEmatLCfT" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150423180622.GC12637@datacom.ind.br> X-Cookie: Your present plans will be successful. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.175.94.161 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: fsl-espi: fix behaviour for full-duplex xfers X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --uIEElZ5lEmatLCfT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:06:22PM -0300, Jonatas Rech wrote: > I agree, but please note that this came up while I was trying to fix the > full-duplex functionality, and it's a different problem. Fixing this would > impact protocol drivers, as stated earlier. It would take some time for me to > study other drivers and come up with the best solution for this driver plus > (at least) the m25p80, which supports the hardware I currently have access to. > I know this must be fixed, but wouldn't it be subject to a different patch? > Thanks in advance for the advice. The commit message says "this correction has exposed an inconsistency" which suggests that the problem was masked before this fix. Did you mean to say that while fixing this you noticed a separate bug that's present anyway? --uIEElZ5lEmatLCfT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVOojIAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQ2d8H/RQ3pr1M71aSUqJkwMNnHC5U ybabdFShQW8l439+/2QSzdAgaY394E/68E9gOT9BlIkY+ub7iEUrcJ+skh5P+At+ 1qmbRve0/7ya6fZcdPnIBRRY1DOCjn99ni9JA05YvCNRBtb3m11Rkn9ObplPyhoA +QVKpDgEbCFpOnyX/nxpaAHkzN9EXr+DcSBxnGbBYTUBCRIm1SJ/po55qKTjvPsc XGXVirosOeeCtrXmEAbIB4I7cKgwdZl5lXOjX4HSF2ypdq2MNQL+Avj/ZWCyjxtn jZh5AhjK9lHBHFgPXdV9XiSXMCwpnlnRSkso8GxmpdbdvZAAN3gmIo+pt+dr0/Y= =wpu/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uIEElZ5lEmatLCfT--