From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Abraham Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] spi: s3c64xx: Remove the 'set_level' callback from controller data Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:56:26 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1341930459-25223-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <1341930459-25223-6-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <20120710143844.GB11698@sirena.org.uk> <20120710165716.GJ10022@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120710165716.GJ10022@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, rob.herring@calxeda.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, jaswinder.singh@linaro.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 10 July 2012 22:27, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:22:31PM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote: > >> In non-dt case, the platform code supplying the gpio number (slave >> select line) is responsible for requesting the gpio during the >> machine_init call. So the gpio request is not called in the driver for >> that gpio. In dt case, the 6th patch adds dt support and that patch >> includes a gpio request call. Hence, this looks okay to me. Please >> suggest if you still feel that there are changes required. > > That's not really particularly sensible given that the changes remove > the option to use anything except GPIOs, the GPIO request should be done > unconditionally in the driver now. Yes, that is right. I will add the gpio request in the driver and resubmit the patch. Thanks.