Hi, Pekon What about the comment below, do I still need to check the mode before setting. >> You missed out comments provided earlier.. >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2013-August/048374.html >> >> Remember .. this compatibility check is between spi_device->mode >> v/s spi_master->mode_bits. This is different from ur V3 patch >> which checks for spi_transfer->tx_nbits v/s spi_device->mode. >> >> + if ((xfer->tx_nbits == SPI_NBITS_DUAL) && >> + !(spi->mode & (SPI_TX_DUAL | SPI_TX_QUAD))) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + if ((xfer->tx_nbits == SPI_NBITS_QUAD) && >> + !(spi->mode & SPI_TX_QUAD)) >> + return -EINVAL; >> >> > Sorry for my mis-understanding. But here I want to regard DUAL / QUAD > mode just as other mode, such as CPHA, CPOL and so on. To other mode, > spi framework didn't do such check, example: > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > /* Mode (clock phase/polarity/etc.) */ > if (of_find_property(nc, "spi-cpha", NULL)) > spi->mode |= SPI_CPHA; > if (of_find_property(nc, "spi-cpol", NULL)) > spi->mode |= SPI_CPOL; > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Spi framework do this check in spi_setup as follow: > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > bad_bits = spi->mode & ~spi->master->mode_bits; > if (bad_bits) { > dev_err(&spi->dev, "setup: unsupported mode bits %x\n", > bad_bits); > return -EINVAL; > } > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > So to keep that consistant, I don't think it is necessary to add the > check when setting the mode. > > Best regards -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
