On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 08:46:10AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > On 03/27/2015 06:53 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:55:49AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > Please fix your mail client to word wrap within paragraphs at less than > > 80 columns - this makes your mails easier to read and reply to. > You are the first one who had problem with this. But I have setup lower > limit and hopefully it is better now. That looks better, yes... I may just be the first one who's bothered remarking on this. > >> On 03/08/2015 08:00 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 01:55:14PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > Remember that we can at least in theory have additional chip selects > > that aren't controlled by the IP block but are instead GPIOs. > I agree with you but this can be generic case for every SPI driver. Also > using external decoder is possible for every driver. Maybe there are > others options via I2C too. Remember that this in the context of me saying I don't think num-cs is a particularly good idea at all... > > There's > > also some potential confusion for users between the number of chip > > selects in use in a given system and the size of the bitfield that the > > driver needs to take care of. > num-ss-bits is autogenerated directly from design tools for particular > hardware design and this size is exactly setup and hardcoded. (num-cs > can be just the same case) > If there are 5 bits there are 5 wires from IP. And value of num-ss-bits > and num-cs will be the same. But what your patch did was *replace* num-ss-bits in the binding, not just add it. > If user wants to use less lines then physically available we could > potentially extend binding to say. num-ss-bit - number of chip selects > available in hardware. num-cs - number of chip selects used by the driver. > But I expect that this will be rejected because it is software setting > not hardware description. num-cs *is* a software setting.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
