[U-Boot-Users] [RFC/PATCH] SPI API improvements

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

On Sunday 11 May 2008, H?aavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 09 May 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> >> This patch hasn't been tested on all the boards involved, so there are
> >> probably a few issues. For now, I'd like some comments on the new
> >> interface -- if it looks good, we should spend some additional effort
> >> to validate that it doesn't introduce any breakage. I could use some
> >> help with this.
> >
> > just a quick glance, but do we care about U-Boot being a SPI slave ?  i
> > only noticed this as i was working on the Blackfin I2C driver recently
> > and realized that the I2C framework has defines for U-Boot to act as a
> > slave. not that the Blackfin driver even has any of the slave stuff
> > implemented, i just noticed it ;).
>
> I can't see much reason to add support for U-Boot acting as a SPI slave,
> and these patches certainly doesn't attempt to make that happen. If
> you're thinking of the new "struct spi_slave", that's a reference to the
> SPI slave we're talking to, i.e. whatever sits at the other end of the
> SPI bus.
>
> If someone else wants support for slave-mode SPI, maybe we should add
> it, but that should be an entirely separate set of patches.

sure sure ... i agree with you completely.  just floating the idea in case 
anyone else actually cared about it.  i certainly dont :).
-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/20080511/05c9e3d4/attachment.pgp