linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Steven A. Falco" <sfalco@harris.com>
To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com
Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Dummy GPIO driver for use with SPI
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:59:13 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49429861.9060305@harris.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081212150144.GA28147@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>

Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 09:22:02AM -0500, Steven A. Falco wrote:
>> This patch adds a dummy GPIO driver, which is useful for SPI devices
>> that do not have a physical chip select.
> 
> Hm. Then you don't need a chip-select, and SPI driver must understand
> this case. When SPI controller has no "gpios" property, it should just
> ignore any chip-select toggling operations.
> 
> As an implementation example you can use this patch:
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/12499/
> 
> grep for "SPI w/o chip-select line."
> 

My actual situation is a bit more complicated - serves me right for
trying to simplify it in my RFC.

We have three devices on the SPI bus.  Two have well-behaved chip
selects - they are ST flash memory devices.  The third device, the
Atmel chip does not have a chip select.  It does have a RESET pin,
which is similar to a chip select, but the Atmel protocol requires
that that pin be low during the entire programming operation, and
I cannot chain all the tx/rx operations together into one atomic 
SPI transaction, so I cannot use that pin as the SPI chip select.

Instead, I manage the RESET pin outside of the SPI driver, and hence
there is no chip select for that one device, so I use my dummy CS
driver to provide a fake chip select to satisfy the SPI driver.

This does have the limitation that I must be careful not to access
the flash parts at the same time as I access the Atmel, but that is
ok for my application.  I guess I could use something like your
patch, but I'd maybe have to extend the flags to include a "do not
use" bit, which would bypass the gpio_is_valid and gpio_request
calls.

What do you think about having a mechanism to specify that some
SPI slaves have a chip select, while others don't have to have a
chip select managed by the SPI subsystem?

	Steve

  reply	other threads:[~2008-12-12 16:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-12 14:22 [RFC] Dummy GPIO driver for use with SPI Steven A. Falco
2008-12-12 15:01 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-12-12 16:59   ` Steven A. Falco [this message]
2008-12-12 17:14     ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-12-12 17:33       ` Steven A. Falco
2008-12-12 21:39       ` Trent Piepho
2008-12-12 22:46         ` David Gibson
2008-12-16 16:34         ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-12-15  0:12 ` David Gibson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=49429861.9060305@harris.com \
    --to=sfalco@harris.com \
    --cc=avorontsov@ru.mvista.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).