On 02/06/2013 07:20 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 02:07 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 03:33:59 +, Mark Brown
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:31:09PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>>
The second function spi_sync_transfer() takes a SPI device and
On 02/05/2013 02:07 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 03:33:59 +, Mark Brown
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:31:09PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>
>>> The second function spi_sync_transfer() takes a SPI device and an array of
>>> spi_transfers. It will allocate a new
On 02/05/2013 02:07 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 03:33:59 +, Mark Brown
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:31:09PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>
>>> The second function spi_sync_transfer() takes a SPI device and an array of
>>> spi_transfers. It will allocate a new
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 03:33:59 +, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:31:09PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>
> > The second function spi_sync_transfer() takes a SPI device and an array of
> > spi_transfers. It will allocate a new spi_message (on the stack) and add all
> > transf
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:31:09PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> The second function spi_sync_transfer() takes a SPI device and an array of
> spi_transfers. It will allocate a new spi_message (on the stack) and add all
> transfers in the array to the message. Finally it will call spi_sync() o
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 09:53 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> +@r1@
> >> +identifier fn;
> >> +identifier xfers;
> >> +@@
> >> +fn(...)
> >> +{
> >> + ...
> >> +(
> >> + struct spi_transfer xfers[...];
> >> +|
> >> + struct spi_transfer xfers[];
> >> +)
> >>
On 01/10/2013 09:53 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> +@r1@
>> +identifier fn;
>> +identifier xfers;
>> +@@
>> +fn(...)
>> +{
>> +...
>> +(
>> +struct spi_transfer xfers[...];
>> +|
>> +struct spi_transfer xfers[];
>> +)
>> +...
>> +}
>
> Can it happen that there would be more than one sp
> +@r1@
> +identifier fn;
> +identifier xfers;
> +@@
> +fn(...)
> +{
> + ...
> +(
> + struct spi_transfer xfers[...];
> +|
> + struct spi_transfer xfers[];
> +)
> + ...
> +}
Can it happen that there would be more than one spi_transfer or spi_message
variable per function? This sem
On 01/09/2013 08:56 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 01/09/2013 08:20 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 01/09/2013 05:31 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>> Quite often the pattern used for setting up and transferring a synchronous
>>> SPI
>>> transaction looks very much like the following:
>>>
>>
On 01/09/2013 08:20 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 01/09/2013 05:31 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>> Quite often the pattern used for setting up and transferring a synchronous
>> SPI
>> transaction looks very much like the following:
>>
>> struct spi_message msg;
>> struct spi_transfer
On 01/09/2013 05:31 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> Quite often the pattern used for setting up and transferring a synchronous SPI
> transaction looks very much like the following:
>
> struct spi_message msg;
> struct spi_transfer xfers[] = {
> ...
> };
>
> s
11 matches
Mail list logo
