On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:04:53PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:51:30AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > - semantically the xfer argument isn't optional and we can't fetch it that easy > > > in the dmaengine completion callbacks. > > Not sure I follow this. > I mean is it Ok to call the spi_delay_exec like this: spi_delay_exec(delay, NULL), > with null passed instead of xfer pointer? Semantically the pointer is required only > if we'd need to calculate the SPI_DELAY_UNIT_SCK delay, but here we'll need > USECS and NSECS delays. So at the first glace there is no problem with passed > NULL instead of xfer. But doing so we'd rely on the semantic peculiarity, which > may seem a bit hackish. Yes, that should be fine if you don't specify a SCK delay. There's no reason to be looking at that if the delay isn't specified in SCKs.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
