Re: [PATCH] spi: core: use gpio_request_one for configured gpio cs

From: Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
To: Chris Packham
	<Chris.Packham-6g8wRflRTwXFdCa3tKVlE6U/zSkkHjvu@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Andy Shevchenko"
	<andy.shevchenko-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	"Martin Hundebøll" <mnhu-rjjw5hvvQKZaa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org>,
	"Mika Westerberg"
	<mika.westerberg-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>,
	"Jarkko Nikula"
	<jarkko.nikula-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-spi <linux-spi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: core: use gpio_request_one for configured gpio cs
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 22:28:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170724212834.yskzvc76tpxixe3u@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e668b7529837444085b9df3a563c3fe3-5g7mGxlPNYb6GjIOKuZY+ItlCAj8ZROq@public.gmane.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1156 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:16:17PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
> On 25/07/17 00:42, Mark Brown wrote:

> > The best way would be to test the work that Chris Packham submitted in
> > May to do this, it'll need a refresh now and it ought to get some
> > testing on ep93xx but sadly nobody working on ep93xx has responded - I
> > think at this point I'd probably just apply and let people test -next.

> My patchset kind of stalled. I can do a refresh if there's interest. But 
> I really do need some help from people with access to hardware (I can 
> cover spi-orion and spi-fsl-espi but that's about it). After the initial 

It's definitely something that'd be really helpful.  If we get it merged
near the start of a development cycle that should give plenty of
opportunities for people to test.

> RFC series I posted in May I found that iMX platforms use the integer 
> cs_gpio field for both native chipselects and gpio based ones (values < 
> 0 indicate native CS) so again I'd be coding blind trying to disentangle 
> that.

i.MX is actively developed (even the SPI driver in particular) so that
should be no problem at least.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]