On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:16:17PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > On 25/07/17 00:42, Mark Brown wrote: > > The best way would be to test the work that Chris Packham submitted in > > May to do this, it'll need a refresh now and it ought to get some > > testing on ep93xx but sadly nobody working on ep93xx has responded - I > > think at this point I'd probably just apply and let people test -next. > My patchset kind of stalled. I can do a refresh if there's interest. But > I really do need some help from people with access to hardware (I can > cover spi-orion and spi-fsl-espi but that's about it). After the initial It's definitely something that'd be really helpful. If we get it merged near the start of a development cycle that should give plenty of opportunities for people to test. > RFC series I posted in May I found that iMX platforms use the integer > cs_gpio field for both native chipselects and gpio based ones (values < > 0 indicate native CS) so again I'd be coding blind trying to disentangle > that. i.MX is actively developed (even the SPI driver in particular) so that should be no problem at least.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
