From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753202AbeDSOzc (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:55:32 -0400 Received: from heliosphere.sirena.org.uk ([172.104.155.198]:41700 "EHLO heliosphere.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752144AbeDSOza (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:55:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 15:55:23 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Radu Pirea Cc: Alexandre Belloni , Nicolas Ferre , robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: add binding for at91-usart in spi mode Message-ID: <20180419145523.GH27188@sirena.org.uk> References: <20180413161117.20274-1-radu.pirea@microchip.com> <20180413161117.20274-3-radu.pirea@microchip.com> <20180413162327.GE22187@piout.net> <8e6c447d-dce5-f9af-e5b2-8d1d863159d6@microchip.com> <20180413181251.GG22187@piout.net> <20180417110358.GD8973@sirena.org.uk> <68cdbb8b60c32980caa7b130409d05d28788edd9.camel@microchip.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PW0Eas8rCkcu1VkF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <68cdbb8b60c32980caa7b130409d05d28788edd9.camel@microchip.com> X-Cookie: We've upped our standards, so up yours! User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --PW0Eas8rCkcu1VkF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:04:16PM +0300, Radu Pirea wrote: > Thank you for suggestions. I followed your advice and looked at PXA SSP > driver. In my opinion it is a layer that avoids collsions and > unfortunately complicates things a bit. My ideea is to keep the things > as simple as possible. For example, I can enhance usart-serial and > usart-spi drivers to print detailed messages if probe fails because one > driver tries to request a memory region already used by another driver. > What do you think? Is this approach a good way to move forward? Alexandre's suggestion using a MFD with a property to select the mode seems more solid TBH. --PW0Eas8rCkcu1VkF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlrYrdsACgkQJNaLcl1U h9CMZAf9GecsYu4xXaOVqUz0a0cx6h608umvha/JVWSZkxiQ/wfRaegqAE/FLR7t InctEm95jQ0cTn07XxLwOCEUrW2KzacBq4Ivv+5vbFQU7mDBSRDHhKZwlOPzPGfG ebSQ/pFduE9Uhxs73RbY5F5xa3nLDPa6almsZeqv5T3C80TEdtxPk6uJhKDqDt44 CEqiNJVtfXoFlFsNJjS/qnLPTou63bOVRkcY0VBlycNBb2AR0qPN7SUQKvVNrQwo aT3v4xlOJQv3UCScITTw9G5/mVcgETvbhlJpufyNCd5zv1ocFVpQy3Em9HdG1T4o hftd8yd9tQPMIX7bt12eonRCWE2Zeg== =p/IG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PW0Eas8rCkcu1VkF--