On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 03:25:12PM +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 08:09 +0200, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
> - the total length of the SPI transfer cannot be empty (which I'd
> consider an optimization, not a violation, and may need a
> separate discussion)
We probably want to allow that for people doing fun stuff with cs_change
though I'm not convinced anything doing that is actually a good idea.
> - the total length of the SPI transfer must be such that each
> "word" must be provided within a full 1/2/4 byte entity, with
> padding bits if the bits-per-word is "odd"
> Is this a misunderstanding on my side? A terminology thing? To
> me, the "SPI transfer" is the total payload and may have any
> arbitrary length. What you check for is a constraint on the
> transfer's length derived from or based on the "word length"
> ('word' in SPI context).
> So the code may be appropriate, yet the description may need an
> update, to not have the next person ask the same questions again.
It seems fairly clear to me - if we're transferring 16 bit words we need
the transfer to me a multiple of 16 bits and so on? The requirement for
padding is unclear I have to say.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
