From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] add spi support for i.MX51 in the existing spi_imx driver Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:07:58 +0800 Message-ID: <4C7F777E.1090104@gmail.com> References: <1283413924-14210-1-git-send-email-jason77.wang@gmail.com> <20100902082759.GE14214@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Jason Wang , s.hauer@pengutronix.de, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, amit.kucheria@canonical.com, spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=F6nig?= Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100902082759.GE14214@pengutronix.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote: > Hello Jason, > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 03:51:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > = >> Some explanations: >> >> This patchset is to add SPI support in the existing spi_imx driver for >> i.MX51 and add SPI relating stuffs for mx51_3ds board level. >> >> i.MX51 has two eCSPI controllers and one CSPI controller, CSPI >> controller is 100% compatible with the one of i.MX35, so we don't need >> to add new functions for this CSPI, only bind it with i.MX35 together, >> while eCSPI isn't compatible with existing controllers of i.MX >> platforms, so i add new functions for these two eCSPIs in the existing >> spi_imx driver. >> >> If these patches pass review, the first patch 0001-xxx.patch should be >> merged by Grant.likely; other patches(0002-0006) are based off >> imx-for-2.6.37 and should be handled by Sascha. >> = > > Unfortunately we (=3DPengutronix) have some patches pending to add > mx51-spi support, too. And there are some other patches that will > conflict with your series (e.g. I renamed some symbols used by you: > > -#define MX51_CSPI1_BASE_ADDR (MX51_SPBA0_BASE_ADDR + 0x10000) > +#define MX51_ECSPI1_BASE_ADDR (MX51_SPBA0_BASE_ADDR + 0x10000) > -#define MX51_CSPI2_BASE_ADDR (MX51_AIPS2_BASE_ADDR + 0xac000) > +#define MX51_ECSPI2_BASE_ADDR (MX51_AIPS2_BASE_ADDR + 0xac000) > -#define MX51_CSPI3_BASE_ADDR (MX51_AIPS2_BASE_ADDR + 0xc0000) > +#define MX51_CSPI_BASE_ADDR (MX51_AIPS2_BASE_ADDR + 0xc0000) > -#define MX51_MXC_INT_CSPI1 36 > -#define MX51_MXC_INT_CSPI2 37 > -#define MX51_MXC_INT_CSPI 38 > +#define MX51_INT_ECSPI1 36 > +#define MX51_INT_ECSPI2 37 > +#define MX51_INT_CSPI 38 > ) > > Actually I would prefer our patches, but of course I'm biased :-) > > I don't know how we should handle this. And Sascha is on vacation this > and next week. I will investigate if our patches are already free to be > posted. > > = OK, for conflicting parts, i will wait for new patches to be posted out, and rebase my conflicting patches off that. If it is possible, please review other parts first. Thanks, Jason. > Best regards > Uwe > > =