On Sunday 11 May 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 09 May 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
This patch hasn't been tested on all the boards involved, so there are probably a few issues. For now, I'd like some comments on the new interface -- if it looks good, we should spend some additional effort to validate that it doesn't introduce any breakage. I could use some help with this.
just a quick glance, but do we care about U-Boot being a SPI slave ? i only noticed this as i was working on the Blackfin I2C driver recently and realized that the I2C framework has defines for U-Boot to act as a slave. not that the Blackfin driver even has any of the slave stuff implemented, i just noticed it ;).
I can't see much reason to add support for U-Boot acting as a SPI slave, and these patches certainly doesn't attempt to make that happen. If you're thinking of the new "struct spi_slave", that's a reference to the SPI slave we're talking to, i.e. whatever sits at the other end of the SPI bus.
If someone else wants support for slave-mode SPI, maybe we should add it, but that should be an entirely separate set of patches.
sure sure ... i agree with you completely. just floating the idea in case anyone else actually cared about it. i certainly dont :). -mike