On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:28:03AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 06:40:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 12:22:37AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > > > I'd like to come back to this discussion. You said best would be to fix > > > the chip driver. To do this and calculate an appropriate value for > > > max_transfer_size the chip driver would have to know that the spi_device > > > is a spi-nor device. > > That doesn't make any sense, the controller hardware doesn't magically > > change based on what is connected to it. > I believe Heiner has an (unstated here, but stated elsewhere?) > assumption that his driver has a maximum *message* size, not *transfer* > size. So he's explaining how to work around that by implicitly figuring > out what the message size would be based on a transfer size, I think. That still wouldn't explain how this could depend on the connected device, the message size isn't going to change any more than the transfer size is.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
