On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 03:11:32PM +0100, Nuno Sá wrote: > On Thu, 2024-01-11 at 13:33 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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 > Fair enough. But wouldn't a simple DT integer property (handled by the spi core) > to identify the offload index be easier for SPI device drivers? We could still > have dedicated interfaces for checking if the unit is busy or not... The point > is that we would not need an explicit get() from SPI drivers. It feels like we'd need a get/release operation of some kind for mutual exclusion, it's not just the discovery it's also figuring out if the hardware is in use at a given moment. > I'm of course assuming that one spi device can only be connected to one engine > which seems reasonable to me. I can see someone implementing this with for example the microcontroller cores a lot of SoCs have in which case all bets are off.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
