On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 19:36 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 07:18:56PM +0000, Trent Piepho wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 18:37 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > If there are non-standard bindings then mark them as deprecated. I > > > can't immediately find *any* binding documentation for this controller. > > > The last commit looks like it was more attempting to work round broken > > > board bindings and do something sensible than add a new binding, at > > > least that's what I remember my sense of it being. > > The non-standard part is needing to add cs-gpios = <0> to get a native > > chip select when that is documented as being optional. It doesn't > > follow the spec. It doesn't match other drivers (and dw-spi is equally > > as broken in the same manner, probably others too) that do follow the > > spec. > > Is there any documentation of the bindings for this driver at all? I > wasn't able to find it. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/fsl-imx-cspi.txt Doesn't note anything special about the native chip selects. > > > If the hardware is as broken as these controllers always were in the > > > past and there are workarounds which work in all practical situations > > > (AFAIK all the relevant SoCs permit GPIO usage on the chip select pins) > > Comments in the driver indicate that some SoCs do not allow GPIO usage > > on all chip select pins. > > Ah, that's an issue. We will need support for the hardware chip selects > then. And they are already supported too. The issue I want to fix is the need for non-standard bindings to use them. > > > documenting something as supported is just going to make people > > > miserable. The reason I know about this breakage is that I had to go > > > through the process of working out that the native chip select support > > > didn't work on a system. > > I just don't see how not following the device tree binding > > specification documents the hardware flaw, or how following the spec > > documents that the flaw does not exist. > > Hardware chip selects aren't present in all controllers and at times > have entertaining enumerations in the hardware, the details on them need > to be covered in the device specific binding (which like I say seems to > be missing for this controller). If they just don't work well the > kindest thing may be to not support them and document the binding that > way. > > > > Yes, better documentation would be great. > > How about I add something to Documentation/spi and add a note in > > Kconfig, but make the driver standard compliant in its device tree > > bindings? > > Writing a binding document for the controller would probably cover it. Ok, I'll adjust the series to document the real issue.��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����)��jg��������ݢj����G�������j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥