On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Wolfram Sang <w.s...@pengutronix.de> wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for the submission. It has some issues, though:
Hi Wolfram, Thanks for the comments, I appreciate your interest in the RFC. > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:34:55PM -0500, Ben Gardiner wrote: > >> + nsecs = >> +#if defined(CONFIG_SLOWER_SPI_GPIO) >> + !cs->nsecs ? cs->nsecs : 100; >> +#else >> + 100; >> +#endif > > This coding style is very hard to read and gains nothing for it. Also, > slower_spi should rather be a per-device than a config option. Yes, now that you mention it the implementation looks very clunky. I think it is starting to sink-in that a 'slower' spi gpio _driver_ is needed. I can think of a couple different ways to make the CS-to-data delay assigned to 'nsecs' a per-device feature: 1) a flag or 2) a function pointer in struct spi_bitbang. Were you thinking of something else entirely? Best Regards, Ben Gardiner --- Nanometrics Inc. http://www.nanometrics.ca ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lotusphere 2011 Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business. http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d _______________________________________________ spi-devel-general mailing list spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
