On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 18:46:51 Grant Likely wrote:
> wrote:
> [...]
> > The following patch adds a function to get the active state of the chip
> > select of a SPI device by looking for the 'spi-cs-high' property in the
> > associated device tree node.
> > This function is used by the spi_mpc8xxx
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Torsten Fleischer
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 20:17:35, Grant Likely wrote:
> [...]
>> spi-cs-high is definitely not a complete solution, but it isn't
>> actively evil either. Plus it is documented and (presumably) in
>> active use. so support for it should n
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 18:46:51 Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
> > + ret = of_get_spi_cs_active_state(np, i, &astate);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "can't get cs active state of device
> > " + "#%d: %d\n", i, ret);
>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 20:17:35, Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
> spi-cs-high is definitely not a complete solution, but it isn't
> actively evil either. Plus it is documented and (presumably) in
> active use. so support for it should not be dropped.
>
> Regardless, there needs to be a library funct
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Anton Vorontsov
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:50:05AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Anton Vorontsov
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:16:34AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> The spi-cs-high property is d
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:50:05AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Anton Vorontsov
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:16:34AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> > [...]
> >> The spi-cs-high property is defined in
> >> Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/spi-bus.txt, bu
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Anton Vorontsov
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:16:34AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> [...]
>> The spi-cs-high property is defined in
>> Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/spi-bus.txt, but it definitely was
>> a mistake
>
> Yup.
>
>> Currently the spi-cs-high p
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:16:34AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
> The spi-cs-high property is defined in
> Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/spi-bus.txt, but it definitely was
> a mistake
Yup.
> Currently the spi-cs-high property is parsed in the
> of_register_spi_devices() function, but the
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Torsten Fleischer
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 13:12:04 Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> [...]
>> > Ah. I understand what you're doing now. Hmmm. This approach
>> > concerns me because it relies on firmware or platform code to get CS
>> > gpios set up properly bef
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Anton Vorontsov
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 03:11:57PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Torsten Fleischer
>> wrote:
>> > On Wen, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:33:57 Grant Likely wrote:
>> >> Thanks. However, there needs to be a proper desc
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 13:12:04 Anton Vorontsov wrote:
[...]
> > Ah. I understand what you're doing now. Hmmm. This approach
> > concerns me because it relies on firmware or platform code to get CS
> > gpios set up properly before the driver is probed.
>
> Yes, that was said at the very begin
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 03:11:57PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Torsten Fleischer
> wrote:
> > On Wen, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:33:57 Grant Likely wrote:
> >> Thanks. However, there needs to be a proper description of what this
> >> patch does to go in the commit header
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Torsten Fleischer
wrote:
> On Wen, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:33:57 Grant Likely wrote:
>> Thanks. However, there needs to be a proper description of what this
>> patch does to go in the commit header. Can you please write one?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> g.
>>
> [...]
>
> The init
On Wen, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:33:57 Grant Likely wrote:
> Thanks. However, there needs to be a proper description of what this
> patch does to go in the commit header. Can you please write one?
>
> Thanks,
> g.
>
[...]
The initialization of the chip selects is removed from the probe() function of
Thanks. However, there needs to be a proper description of what this
patch does to go in the commit header. Can you please write one?
Thanks,
g.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Torsten Fleischer
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:45:50 Grant Likely wrote:
> [...]
>> Hey Torsten, do you have
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:45:50 Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
> Hey Torsten, do you have an updated version of this change to address
> the comments? I'm collecting the last few things for some linux-next
> exposure now.
Hey Grant,
here is the updated version of the patch containing the recommende
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Anton Vorontsov
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 05:20:06PM +0100, Torsten Fleischer wrote:
> [...]
>> > Oh. On the other hand, we can postpone the gpio_direction_output()
>> > call, and still require that the platform code (or firmware)
>> > should be responsible
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 05:20:06PM +0100, Torsten Fleischer wrote:
[...]
> > Oh. On the other hand, we can postpone the gpio_direction_output()
> > call, and still require that the platform code (or firmware)
> > should be responsible for setting a sane default values on the
> > chip selects.
> >
On Wen, Nov 18, 2009 00:28:23 Anton Vorontsov wrote:
[...]
> > > > > So it might be better to fix up initial value in the platform code?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, we actually cannot, because the driver calls
> > > > gpio_direction_output().
> > > >
> > > > And since we don't know the mode prior to SPI de
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:22:11PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:09:28PM +0100, Torsten Fleischer wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 19:00PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > So it might be better to fix up initial value in the platform code?
> > >
> > > Oh, we
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 19:00PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
[...]
> > So it might be better to fix up initial value in the platform code?
>
> Oh, we actually cannot, because the driver calls
> gpio_direction_output().
>
> And since we don't know the mode prior to SPI device's driver
> probe() finishe
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:09:28PM +0100, Torsten Fleischer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 19:00PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> [...]
> > > So it might be better to fix up initial value in the platform code?
> >
> > Oh, we actually cannot, because the driver calls
> > gpio_direction_output().
> >
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 08:10:37PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
[...]
> > I also tried to set alow_flags[x] = 0 for active low. In this case the
> > transfer works, but the initial value for the CS is wrong (Low instead of
> > High).
>
> So it might be better to fix up initial value in the plat
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 05:42:46PM +0100, Torsten Fleischer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have 3 devices connected to the SPI bus of the MPC8313. For the Chip Select
> (CS) signals 3 GPIOs of the controller are used. But the driver uses the
> inverse polarity of the CS either during the initialization
Hi all,
I have 3 devices connected to the SPI bus of the MPC8313. For the Chip Select
(CS) signals 3 GPIOs of the controller are used. But the driver uses the
inverse polarity of the CS either during the initialization or at the transfer
- depending on the setup of the flattened device tree.
H
25 matches
Mail list logo
