On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 00:53:35 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 02:23:07PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 05:41, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> > > On 05/06/2010 08:26 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> i think it'd be a better idea to do something like:
> > >> if (spi->bits_per_word != 16) {
> > >> if (spi->bits_per_word) {
> > >> dev_err(&spi->dev, "Invalid SPI settings; bits_per_word must be 16\n");
> > >> return -EINVAL;
> > >> }
> > >> spi->bits_per_word = 16;
> > >> spi_setup(spi);
> > >> }
> > >
> > > There is no way to set bits_per_word using struct spi_board_info. The
> > > description of that structure in spi.h explicitly lists the wordsize as
> > > one of the parameters drivers should set themself in probe().
> > >
> > > Only struct bfin5xx_spi_chip allows to set this value in the board code.
> >
> > an obvious shortcoming in the SPI framework that should be fixed, but
> > that doesnt make any difference to the above code now does it ? it'll
> > operate correctly regardless of the SPI bus master.
>
> So is the updated patch coming?
The basic question I see is, whether it is in the
responsibility of ad7877 to check a wrong setting
possibly caused in board specific code. If so,
then the proposal by Mike should be used, but if not
so, it would introduce unneeded code.
Remember: both versions end up in correctly setting
bits_per_word, with the difference merely in feedback
level.
This is a design decision, I'ld say. So what are the
opinions on it, has it been taken yet, previously?
Oskar
--
oskar schirmer, emlix gmbh, http://www.emlix.com
fon +49 551 30664-0, fax -11, bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 göttingen, germany
sitz der gesellschaft: göttingen, amtsgericht göttingen hr b 3160
geschäftsführer: dr. uwe kracke, ust-idnr.: de 205 198 055
emlix - your embedded linux partner
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
