From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: spidev and the use of spi_async instead of spi_sync Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:41:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20150422194133.GI22845@sirena.org.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aJFFgG5QZHt5jcrP" Cc: linux-spi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Martin Sperl Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-spi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: --aJFFgG5QZHt5jcrP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 05:55:44PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote: > As this code is from 2008 the situation may be different > now and we can use spi_sync instead? Yes, that seems sensible. I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't have done that in the first place. For things like this please just provide a patch directly, it's much quicker and easier. --aJFFgG5QZHt5jcrP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVN/lsAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQ0nkH/18ffDLCKJURYyt1EvyKTIKM LYWSS2aGASXtg2ZOIMW2as2xwT1d0rXxJFpDNK5LQ8VTfO8qDwkTYDHS4NDyAGUG N0VMY9BObHf7nyhldT37roVTW6W94uuSJbf0FuWKv1dZu9OW7lG+4VDRl8FXHEom klc/md3whiBIgLBwJGapo8JJnqbBiwsyp2c7mnGGfD5d2W3EE5relYSj+ogwlsYp P9Lp4uuEutrfRz3AOvjFjJjrhb0ZVc4iHvGWWLgy+VuR7dzHMDroJdNWIvaBdUIt tr5fSl7J19/XTJt3kPX9H2+Z+yPBODpcrzRpBHtFFtQzeqkhR2t/I0P59PLmqNM= =Axid -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aJFFgG5QZHt5jcrP-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html