On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 05:55:44PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote:

> As this code is from 2008 the situation may be different
> now and we can use spi_sync instead?

Yes, that seems sensible.  I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't
have done that in the first place.  For things like this please just
provide a patch directly, it's much quicker and easier.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to