On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 06:41:21PM +0800, Yun Zhou wrote: > On 2/14/22 10:36 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > ever or that it'd be done this way if it were new but that doesn't mean > > we can just randomly change the interface and potentially disrupt users. > > Whatever else is going on the current behaviour is intentional. > Although the logic dealing with cs_change in spi_transfer_one_message() has > existed a long time and nobody reports issue on it, that doesn't mean it is > correct. I think the main reason is, cs_change is only used to change Please read and engage with what what I said above about not disrupting existing users by just randomly changing this, silently changing how the parameter operates will break any users that rely on the functionality which is not going to help anyone and to the extent there is an issue here it is only those users who would be affected in the first place. This is not a productive discussion, please stop unless you have concrete proposals that are considerate of existing users.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
