On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:43:36PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:21:18PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This was being done via platform data not via device tree, unlike
> > platform data device tree should provide a long term stable OS neutral
> > ABI.
> No, specifying it via the device tree was subsequently added with
> commit 39a6ac11df65 ("spi/pl022: Devicetree support w/o platform data"),
> sorry for not mentioning this in the commit message.
> There's already a bool in struct spi_master for this functionality and
> device tree support for pl022, so I don't quite understand why converting
> the bool to an int and adding device tree support for bcm2835 would be
> the wrong approach?
The presence of the device tree support for pl022 is an oversight during
the initial DT transition. It's perfectly fine for the functionality to
be there and used in running systems but it's not something that makes
sense in device tree as it's too much of an implementation detail.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
