Hi Mark, > > What I meant is that if we do not like num-cs = <0>, the > > unlinked CS line can be handled only this way (case of the > > s3c64xx driver): > > > +- broken-cs: the CS line is disconnected, therefore the device should not wait > > + for the CS protocol to be established > > So what you're saying here is that you just need a property for the > inability to read back the chip select status? That seems like a > totally reasonable thing to have which fits in idiomatically with the > rest of the subsystem. I might call it no-cs-readback or something. > > > Which is not something I like, because it means adding a new > > flag in the dts. > > > What I want to suggest, instead, is to slightly change the logic > > behind the num-cs property: i.e. if "num-cs = <0>", doesn't > > necessarily mean that we don't have a CS controller, but, while > > we can have as many as we wish, non of them is connected. > > I disagree, I think from a system integration point of view this is just > a chip select which can't be changed and it's less likely that we will > run into nasty surprises later on with things assuming that chip selects > exist. AFAICT you only need this property in your case because this > controller has some features that rely on readback of the chip select > status, that's not very common - normally it'd be write only. I'd > expect most controllers would just say they have one chip select and > that'd be that. thanks for your feedback, I will then do as you say, I will use the no-cs-readback flag. Thanks again, Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html