> David, do you think writing 0 bytes is a valid use of this API? Just a zero byte transfer ... no, though it depends what you mean by "valid". (I'm not sure I'd expect all controller drivers to reject such requests.) That has no effect on bits-on-the-wire, and would make trouble for various DMA engines.
Passing zero bytes to get an inline delay at an exact spot in the overall protocol message ... I don't see why not. Better than adding delay fields for every spot it might be needed by various oddball devices, for sure!! > IMHO, we should add a fied to the spi_transfer struct. What would that do, exactly? This *specific* usage might arguably belong in spi_device, since it's a delay required after chipselect goes active and before any bytes get transferred. It's clearly not a per-transfer thing, and should also apply after a temporary mid-message chip deselect. And it would probably deserve a mode flag (sigh) unless someone can update every master controller driver. - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
