From: Bert Vermeulen <bert@biot.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: 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 13:01:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55362E02.3070309@biot.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdW=_=CJENSqNSk6Lgt8-9Ea=TmWsKmLWUKGpbM0N8MXYg@mail.gmail.com>
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:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 03:53:25PM +0200, Bert Vermeulen wrote:
>>> As it turns out, the set_cs() enable parameter refers to the logic level
>>> on the CS pin, not the state of chip selection.
>>
>>> This broke functionality of the LEDs behind the CPLD, or at least delayed
>>> the commands until another one came in to toggle CS.
>>
>> 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.
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?
--
Bert Vermeulen bert@biot.com email/xmpp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-21 11:01 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 [this message]
2015-04-21 11:09 ` Mark Brown
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=55362E02.3070309@biot.com \
--to=bert@biot.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--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
Powered by JetHome