Am 02.09.2015 um 19:29 schrieb Noralf Trønnes: > > Den 01.09.2015 19:52, skrev Brüns, Stefan: >> On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 16:57:14 Noralf Trønnes wrote: >>>> IMHO, this is a bad idea. A controller supporting more than 32 bpw can >>>> not set the bpw mask, as the mask is limited to 32 bits. Thus it >>>> has to >>>> check the bpw in its own setup function, and may or may not reject >>>> 9 bpw. >>>> >>>> Why should one penalize any controllers having an unset bpw mask, >>>> which >>>> is a completely valid configuration? >>>> >>>> BTW, the SPI core patch needed for this to work is in the 4.3 pull >>>> request. >>> I have acked a patch from Stefan Wahren adressing this issue: >>> http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/2015-Augus >>> >>> t/075423.html >> Two issues: >> >> 1st: Stefan Wahren posted a patch large part identical to mine, 18 hours >> later. Coincidence? > > For my part I admit to being sloppy here, I should have pulled you > into the thread. > > According to the commit message, Stefan Wahren seem to have detected > this problem > on the ARM MXS platform and you refere to xilinx, so I guess it's a > coincidence. Yes, it's really a coincidence. Sorry, i didn't noticed Stefan's patch. Interestingly i had the same idea about patching spi_setup. But i feared regressions because of incorrect bits_per_word_mask in some spi drivers. Stefan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
