From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:13:32 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [rfc] new spiflash subsystem In-Reply-To: <20080129101227.563d1c22@dhcp-252-066.norway.atmel.com> References: <200801281500.34869.vapier@gentoo.org> <200801281929.38755.vapier@gentoo.org> <20080129101227.563d1c22@dhcp-252-066.norway.atmel.com> Message-ID: <200801290913.33498.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Tuesday 29 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > I'd really like to see a common layer for SPI flash though, so I don't > > > mean to criticise your effort. But it would be nice if not every new > > > SPI client came with its own low-level SPI functions... > > > > i know exactly where you're coming from, so dont sweat it. my purpose > > was to get things integrated and then take a look at the existing pieces > > and unify them. easier i think to have known working code to throw at a > > common framework than code for hypothetical uses we cant actually break > > our teeth on. > > Ok, don't worry about it then. I just wanted to make sure you > investigate the API(s) we already have before you propose something > new. > > So let's just make "please use the include/spi.h API for low-level SPI > access" be one of the comments on your RFC :-) do you have a git tree for this so i can pull it down and test it for Blackfin ? i can see about posting an updated implementation then ... -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20080129/a4fc0fe7/attachment.pgp