On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 12:58:29PM -0400, Frank Li wrote:
> Use SPI common propteries 'spi-cs-setup-delay-ns' and
properties
> 'spi-cs-hold-delay-ns', mark private properties 'fsl,spi-cs-sck-delay'
> and 'fsl,spi-sck-cs-delay' as depericated.
deprecated
>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1043a-rdb.dts | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1043a-rdb.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1043a-rdb.dts
> index 26f8540cb101b..fef3534157a1d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1043a-rdb.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1043a-rdb.dts
> @@ -104,6 +104,11 @@ flash@0 {
> compatible = "n25q128a13", "jedec,spi-nor"; /* 16MB */
> reg = <0>;
> spi-max-frequency = <1000000>; /* input clock */
> + /* Add common SPI property */
I guess if you do insist on adding comments for this (not necessary IMO),
we could improve on the stylistic elegance by saying "Standard CS timing
properties replace the deprecated vendor variants below" or something
like that. But currently it doesn't look great when there is a verb in
the present tense and another in the past tense. Also, the plural form
should have been used for 'property'.
Additionally, I don't believe that a new line between the groups of
properties is necessary.
> + spi-cs-setup-delay-ns = <100>;
> + spi-cs-hold-delay-ns = <100>;
Do you plan on deprecating the fsl, CS timing parameters tree-wide, or
are you going to stop at the LS1043A-RDB?
