Hi Heiko,
thanx for your comments.
On 06/12/2017 04:36 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
Am Montag, 12. Juni 2017, 16:26:07 CEST schrieb jeffy:
Hi Shawn,
On 06/12/2017 03:15 PM, Shawn Lin wrote:
Hi Jeffy,
On 2017/6/12 14:14, Jeffy Chen wrote:
Support using "cs-gpios" property to specify cs gpios.
Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-rockchip.txt | 2 +
drivers/spi/spi-rockchip.c | 52
++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 54 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-rockchip.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-rockchip.txt
index 83da493..02171b2 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-rockchip.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-rockchip.txt
The changes for doc should be another patch, and...
but i saw others didn't separate them:
cf9e478 spi: sh-msiof: Add slave mode support
23e291c spi: rockchip: support "sleep" pin configuration
it sometimes falls through the cracks, but having dt-binding patches
separate is meant to make it easier on DT-Maintainers to find
patches they need to look at.
ok, will do.
+ if (!data->cs_gpio_requested) {
+ ret = gpio_request_one(spi->cs_gpio, flags,
+ dev_name(&spi->dev));
+ if (!ret)
+ data->cs_gpio_requested = 1;
+ } else
+ ret = gpio_direction_output(spi->cs_gpio, flags);
need brace around 'else' statement. Also I don't see data used
elsewhere, so you need these code above.
ok.
and the cs_gpio_requested is to mark cs_gpio requested, because the
setup func might be called multiple times, we only need to request gpio
at the first time.
Aren't the gpiod* functions meant to be used for new things?
Also you might actually do a bit of error handling there, especially
EPROBE_DEFER.
so you are suggesting to use gpiod* functions here to replace gpio_*
functions right?
Heiko
--
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
