On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:49:08AM +0100, Nuno Sá wrote: > On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 13:49 -0600, David Lechner wrote: > > /* in probe() */ > > offload = spi_offload_get(spi, 0); > On top of what Mark already stated, and as we already discussed offline, I > personally don't like this provider - consumer interface for the offload. The > first thing is that this is taking into account the possibility of having > multiple offload cores. While the FGPA core was designed with that in mind, we > don't really have any design using multiple offloads in one spi engine (always > one). Hence this is all pretty much untested. I tend to agree that we shouldn't be exposing this to SPI device drivers however we will want to keep track of if the unit is busy, and designing it to cope with multiple offloads does seem like sensible future proofing. There's also the possibility that one engine might be able to cope with multiple scripts being active at once (eg, triggering a different action depending on the trigger).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
