From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: baruch@tkos.co.il (Baruch Siach) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 20:29:09 +0300 Subject: [PATCH 1/6] spi-imx: add CSPI and eCSPI support for i.MX51 MCU In-Reply-To: <19583.48828.125104.712979@ipc1.ka-ro> References: <1283413924-14210-1-git-send-email-jason77.wang@gmail.com> <1283413924-14210-2-git-send-email-jason77.wang@gmail.com> <20100902145357.GL14214@pengutronix.de> <19583.48828.125104.712979@ipc1.ka-ro> Message-ID: <20100902172908.GD2464@tarshish> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Lothar, On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 05:11:56PM +0200, Lothar Wa?mann wrote: > > > - if (cpu_is_mx25() || cpu_is_mx31() || cpu_is_mx35()) { > > > + /* i.MX51 has two eCSPI and one CSPI controllers, eCSPI controllers are > > > + * not compatible with existing SPI controllers on other i.MX platforms, > > > + * while CSPI controller is 100% compatible with the one on the i.MX35. > > > + * We set the platform device id to 2 for this CSPI at i.MX51 board init > > > + * level to distinguish it from two eCSPI controllers. > > > + */ > > This comment is missing in Sascha's driver. I like it. > > BTW, I'd like to make use of platform ids in this driver. This would > > make this ugly "on imx51 id2 is a cspi" distinction unnecessary. > > > > > + if (cpu_is_mx25() || cpu_is_mx31() || cpu_is_mx35() || > > > + (cpu_is_mx51() && (pdev->id == 2))) { > I'd prefer a flag in the platform_data that tells the driver to act as > an eCSPI driver. This way the information about eCSPI or not would be > where it belongs (in the arch specific code). But this also increases the size of driver code, since the compiler can resolve cpu_is_* at compile time, and drop the dead code. Maybe an is_ecspi macro will make the above code clearer. baruch -- ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -