From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:54:16 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] spi-imx: add CSPI and eCSPI support for i.MX51 MCU
In-Reply-To: <4C8092AB.1050405@gmail.com>
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>
	<4C8092AB.1050405@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100903075416.GY14214@pengutronix.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:16:11PM +0800, Jason Wang 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.
>>
>>   
> agree, i like both your and lothar's solution.
> Either platform ids or flags in platform_data.
I suggest to do the cleanup later.  Doing it before adding mx51 support
would make only more work for little benefit.  And then the cleanup
bases on a working version.  I'm willing to implement the platform id
thingy and evaluate it.  But currently I have no time for that.  So I
suggest we choose a mix between your and Sascha's patch for now and I
will check where the cleanup fits in my planning.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |