On 07.07.2020 12:25, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:57:53PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:18 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> It would really help to have an example of how a client device will use >>> this, right now it's a bit hard to follow. Overall it feels like this >>> should be better abstracted, right now there's lots of ifdefs throughout >>> the code which make things unclear and also seem like they're going to >>> be fragile long term since realistically very few systems will be using >>> this. >> Can't the ifdefs be avoided by implementing this as a new SPI controller? >> I.e. the daisy chain driver will operate as a slave of the parent SPI >> controller, >> but will expose a new SPI bus to the daisy-chained slaves. > Yes, that might work. I do worry about locking issues with having a SPI > controller connected via SPI but we mostly only lock at the controller > level so it's probably fine. Not sure how this would perform either. I see your point here. I could evaluate how complicated it would be to abstract the spi-daisy_chain driver as an SPI controller for its nodes. Regards, Adrian
