Thank you Linus Walleij. And we will await your patchset.
Please cc to linuxarm.
Thank you,
Jay
On 2018/12/5 18:28, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:33 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:15:51AM +0800, Jay Fang wrote:
>>
>>> -static int of_spi_register_master(struct spi_controller *ctlr)
>>> -{
>>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && np) {
>>> + for (i = 0; i < nb; i++)
>>> + cs[i] = of_get_named_gpio(np, "cs-gpios", i);
>>> + } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) && ACPI_HANDLE(&ctlr->dev)) {
>>> + for (i = 0; i < nb; i++) {
>>> + desc = devm_gpiod_get_index(&ctlr->dev, "cs",
>>> + i, GPIOD_ASIS);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(desc))
>>> + continue;
>>> + cs[i] = desc_to_gpio(desc);
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> return 0;
>>
>> Given that both properties are called "cs" won't devm_gpiod_get_index()
>> do the right thing for DT systems as well as ACPI allowing us to move
>> entirely to descriptors and remove the need for separate code paths here?
>
> Indeed moving the cs-gpios over to just using descriptors is on my
> TODO list and I have a rough patch cooking:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git/commit/?h=gpio-descriptors-spi&id=963bff1e8feb020cac05325db84a37f81efdb0ea
>
> I think maybe I should expediate this patch[set] so there is a clean
> path forward for ACPI without having to do this:
>
>> + cs[i] = desc_to_gpio(desc);
>
> Which is essentially the waltz of two steps forward, one step back,
> *shudder*
>
> I'll try to get my patch into shape ASAP.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>
> .
>
