On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 03:34:55PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:17:50PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > This is the opposite of the intended behaviour - we want to deassert > > chip select at the end of the message unless cs_change is set on the > > last transfer. If this were broken I would expect to see widespread > > problems being reported. > This is unfortunate naming I suppose. I reread the spi.h comments > a few more times and it seems indeed, that .cs_change == 1 on last > transfer means to a driver: "you may leave CS unchanged" - quite the > reverse compared to non-last transfers. cs_change also means that we should add an extra chip select transition on transfers other than the last. > Please drop this patch then. OK.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
