Hi Jagan,
On 28.10.16 20:07, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Andreas Bießmann andreas@biessmann.org wrote:
Dear Wenyou Yang,
Wenyou Yang wenyou.yang@atmel.com writes:
Add driver model support while retaining the existing legacy code. This allows the driver to support boards that have converted to driver model as well as those that have not.
Signed-off-by: Wenyou Yang wenyou.yang@atmel.com Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Acked-by: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com
Changes in v11:
- Set cs_gpio direction to output and active.
- Use wait_for_bit() to replace do {} while ().
- Add more description for help of ATMEL_SPI.
Changes in v10:
- Add Acked-by tag.
Changes in v9:
- Due to the peripheral clock driver improvement, remove the unneccessary clock calling.
Changes in v8:
- Fix compile error for AVR32.
Changes in v7:
- Move gpio_request_list_by_name() to _probe(), remove *_ofdata_to_platdata().
Changes in v6:
- Remove the two flash related options.
Changes in v5:
- Change clk_client.h -> clk.h to adapt to clk API conversion.
Changes in v4:
- Collect Reviewed-by tag.
- Update the clk API based on [PATCH] clk: convert API to match reset/mailbox fstyle (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/625342/).
- Remove check on dev_get_parent() return.
- Fixed the return value, -ENODEV->-EINVAL.
- Retain #include <asm/arch/clk.h> line.
Changes in v3:
- Remove redundant log print.
Changes in v2:
- Add clock support.
drivers/spi/Kconfig | 8 ++ drivers/spi/atmel_spi.c | 288 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 296 insertions(+)
applied to u-boot-atmel/master, thanks!
Sorry, don't know how come this is applied w/o any Ack/Review tag from the maintainer?
This patch is now in v11 and posted first in April this year, it was most times delegated to me [1]. Sorry, when adding it today I did not think of asking for your reviewed/acked-by. I try to respect this in future.
With your comment here I started a retrospective on this patch and figured out it was once delegated to you (v7) and got a reviewed-by from you which did not make it into the patch. Do you have any objections? Should I remove this patch from the pull request?
Andreas
[1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?submitter=&state=*&q...