On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 14:15, Oskar Schirmer wrote:
> 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.
imo, unsupported board settings should always be detected & rejected.
all SPI master drivers do this (detect & reject unsupported SPI slave
settings).
-mike
--
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
