Hi Naveen,

Please see my comments inline.

On 15.07.2014 14:20, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi wrote:
> This patch modifies the spi-s3c64xx.c driver to fetch the 
> Chip select or Slave select gpio line property "cs-gpios"
> from SPI node instead of "controller_data" subnode.
> 
> Rename the property "cs-gpio" to "cs-gpios" in accordance
> with the SPI core. Such that s3c64xx.c can use spi->cs_gpio
> instead of parsing the property in the driver.
> 
> Update the dt-bindings ion spi/spi-samsung.txt
> 
> Signed-off-by: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <ch.nav...@samsung.com>
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.marti...@collabora.co.uk>
> Cc: Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org>
> Cc: Tomasz Figa <t.f...@samsung.com>
> ---
> This patch is a rework of the change @
> http://www.mail-archive.com/devicetree@vger.kernel.org/msg34500.html
> 
> I'm not sure if i can carry forward the other Signed-offs and Tested-bys

[snip]

> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
> index 75a5696..72bfba6 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
> @@ -764,12 +764,6 @@ static struct s3c64xx_spi_csinfo 
> *s3c64xx_get_slave_ctrldata(
>               return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>       }
>  
> -     data_np = of_get_child_by_name(slave_np, "controller-data");
> -     if (!data_np) {
> -             dev_err(&spi->dev, "child node 'controller-data' not found\n");
> -             return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> -     }

Do you need to move this code block?

> -
>       cs = kzalloc(sizeof(*cs), GFP_KERNEL);
>       if (!cs) {
>               of_node_put(data_np);
> @@ -777,13 +771,17 @@ static struct s3c64xx_spi_csinfo 
> *s3c64xx_get_slave_ctrldata(
>       }
>  
>       /* The CS line is asserted/deasserted by the gpio pin */
> -     if (sdd->cs_gpio)
> -             cs->line = of_get_named_gpio(data_np, "cs-gpio", 0);
> +     cs->line = spi->cs_gpio;
>  
>       if (!gpio_is_valid(cs->line)) {

This check is wrong when native chip select is used. However I'm not
sure how to distinguish this from a situation when invalid GPIO was
specified, because cs->line will be -ENOENT in both cases. Mark, any ideas?

>               dev_err(&spi->dev, "chip select gpio is not specified or 
> invalid\n");
>               kfree(cs);
> -             of_node_put(data_np);
> +             return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +     }
> +
> +     data_np = of_get_child_by_name(slave_np, "controller-data");
> +     if (!data_np) {
> +             dev_err(&spi->dev, "child node 'controller-data' not found\n");
>               return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>       }
>  
> @@ -1077,7 +1075,7 @@ static int s3c64xx_spi_probe(struct platform_device 
> *pdev)
>       sdd->sfr_start = mem_res->start;
>       sdd->cs_gpio = true;
>       if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
> -             if (!of_find_property(pdev->dev.of_node, "cs-gpio", NULL))
> +             if (!of_find_property(pdev->dev.of_node, "cs-gpios", NULL))
>                       sdd->cs_gpio = false;

What is this boolean flag used for now? If cs->line now either contains
a valid GPIO or a negative error, why gpio_is_valid() couldn't be used
on it? I believe it was done correctly in previous version.

Best regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to