From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp121.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (smtp121.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com [69.147.64.94]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DC72DDFB5 for ; Sun, 25 May 2008 02:50:45 +1000 (EST) From: David Brownell To: "Grant Likely" Subject: Re: [spi-devel-general] [PATCH 3/4] spi: Add OF binding support for SPI busses Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 00:13:27 -0700 References: <20080516193054.28030.35126.stgit@trillian.secretlab.ca> <200805221926.24112.david-b@pacbell.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200805240013.28044.david-b@pacbell.net> Cc: fabrizio.garetto@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net, Guennadi Liakhovetski List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Friday 23 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote: > Very good point.  Okay, so we cannot assume any correlation between > the number of CS lines and the number of child nodes to the SPI bus. That wasn't what I was implying ... all the devices hooked up to a given chipselect should be viewed as a single (albeit composite) child node. Now, the driver for that child node may want to expose lots of substructure. But that's no different from any other complex device, whose protocol happens to embed some notion of component addressing. It's just that in the case I mentioned, that addressing is a bit more externally visible than it is in some other cases. - Dave