On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 04:46:43PM +0200, Sergiu Cuciurean wrote:
> In a recent change to the SPI subsystem [1], a new `delay` struct was added
Don't do [1] footnote, just say "SPI subsystem in commit bebcfd272df6
("spi: introduce `delay` field for `spi_transfer` + spi_transfer_delay_exec()")
You can use footnotes for URLs if you want (not required).
> to replace the `delay_usecs`. This change replaces the current
> `delay_usecs` with `delay` for this driver.
>
> The `spi_transfer_delay_exec()` function [in the SPI framework] makes sure
> that both `delay_usecs` & `delay` are used (in this order to preserve
> backwards compatibility).
>
> [1] commit bebcfd272df6 ("spi: introduce `delay` field for
> `spi_transfer` + spi_transfer_delay_exec()")
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergiu Cuciurean <sergiu.cuciur...@analog.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_spi.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_spi.c
> b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_spi.c
> index 1c360daa703d..cc9b147fd437 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_spi.c
> @@ -386,8 +386,9 @@ kp_spi_transfer_one_message(struct spi_master *master,
> struct spi_message *m)
> }
> }
>
> - if (transfer->delay_usecs)
> - udelay(transfer->delay_usecs);
> + if (transfer->delay.value &&
> + (transfer->delay.unit == SPI_DELAY_UNIT_USECS))
> + udelay(transfer->delay.value);
What if the units are in USEC now? We should probably not just ignore
it right?
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
