On 6 August 2015 at 12:22, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:01:37PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> Disclaimer: I am not familiar with the hardware for which this patch >> adds support. >> >> However, I am familiar m25p80.c and as I understand it the controller >> is basically supposed to implement m25p80.c in hardware when this flag >> is set. > > That, to me, sounds like what you have is: > > ---m25p80 specific interface--->SPI bus--->m25p80 device > > Where the m25p80 specific interface does not expose direct access to the > SPI bus? The m25p80 specific hardware interface is presumably optional so you can use it or not. The description is a bit vague, though. In fsl-qspi the driver does not make it optional. I am not sure that controller can be used for non-m25p80 slaves. > > If that's the case, then maybe you should consider whether using the SPI > bus infrastructure is really the best way forward. Would it make more > sense instead to adopt a different software structure, something more > high-level like: > > +-------------------------------------------+ > | m25p80 high-level driver =spi-nor | > +----------------------+--------------------+ > | SPI m25p80 driver | | > +----------------------+ | > | SPI layer | Special driver =fsl-qspi| > +----------------------+ | > | SPI bus driver | | > +----------------------+--------------------+ > | SPI hardware | Special hardware | > +----------------------+--------------------+ > Thanks Michal -- 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
