On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:01:22PM +0200, Bert Vermeulen wrote: > On 04/21/2015 11:46 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> No, the enable parameter *should* refer to chip select assertion (see > >> how we handle GPIO chip selects). However it's possible that this > >> device has an inverted chip select and should be registered with the > >> SPI_CS_HIGH flag? > > It's logic level: > > * @set_cs: set the logic level of the chip select line. May be called > > * from interrupt context. > Right It's the implementation which doesn't really make sense IMHO: it > always inverts the "enable" parameter (unless SPI_CS_HIGH is set), in > keeping with the default active-low. The default chip select is active low so an enebled chip select is low. > So the docs are right, but "enable" doesn't match what it does. Chip select > assertion would be a better API here. Is it worth fixing? I suspect it's going to cause more breakage than it fixes with people upstreaming things to change the sense of the paramter betwen kernel versions - renaming the parameter to be clearer is probably about as good as it gets.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
