> Am 09.12.2020 um 22:28 schrieb Sven Van Asbroeck <thesve...@gmail.com>:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 3:08 PM H. Nikolaus Schaller <h...@goldelico.com> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> But I have tested with
>> 
>>> spi->mode |= SPI_MODE_3;
>> 
>> which should keep the mode intact. Right? That did not work either.
>> 
> 
> - make sure ("spi: fix client driver breakages when using GPIO descriptors")
>  is in your tree

Well, if you remember, the panel did work *before* this patch was in my tree
and I found this patch as the reason of the break...

> - your panel's CS is active-low, so 'spi-cs-high' should be removed from its
>  devicetree entry. In accordance with the rules as explained in commit
>  message of 6953c57ab172. Also in accordance with the table you posted
>  in this patch.

It could not have been different because the table was the result of
experimentally checking all possible combinations...

> 
> When these two changes in place, your panel should work. I have tested this
> by mirroring your setup on my board:
> 
> spi5-gpio {
>       compatible = "spi-gpio";
>       #address-cells = <0x1>;
>       #size-cells = <0x0>;
>       pinctrl-names = "default";
>       pinctrl-0 = <&...>;
> 
>       sck-gpios = <&gpio... GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>       miso-gpios = <&gpio... GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>       mosi-gpios = <&gpio... GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>       cs-gpios = <&gpio... GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;

BTW: exactly this choice is questionable ^^^ if you have an active low CS
and it needs an explanation.

>       num-chipselects = <1>;
> 
>       ethernet-switch@0 { /* active low cs */
>               compatible = "micrel,ksz8795";
>               spi-max-frequency = <1000000>;
>               reg = <0>;
>       };
> };
> 
> If this does not work for you, then what are we missing?

I am missing that you notice that we are not discussing what I should
do with the panel driver or my device tree. I have these patches laying around
for a while (which exactly do what you try to convince me about - except that
I would apply an GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW). Just not submitted because I want to
have a clear definition agreed on first. For a simple reason: reviewers
of my patch should know what to check for.

In this thread we discuss a patch for the SPI bindings documentation which
is something different. See subject and the file the patch affects.

And I am looking for an ack and merge by maintainers of the affected subsystems
that the table is ok. Nothing else.

Please let's stay on topic and please cooperate.

Reply via email to