[U-Boot-Users] [RFC/PATCH] SPI API improvements

["HŒaavard Skinnemoen" <haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com>]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 09 May 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
>> This patch hasn't been tested on all the boards involved, so there are
>> probably a few issues. For now, I'd like some comments on the new
>> interface -- if it looks good, we should spend some additional effort
>> to validate that it doesn't introduce any breakage. I could use some
>> help with this.
> 
> just a quick glance, but do we care about U-Boot being a SPI slave ?  i only 
> noticed this as i was working on the Blackfin I2C driver recently and 
> realized that the I2C framework has defines for U-Boot to act as a slave.  
> not that the Blackfin driver even has any of the slave stuff implemented, i 
> just noticed it ;).

I can't see much reason to add support for U-Boot acting as a SPI slave, 
and these patches certainly doesn't attempt to make that happen. If 
you're thinking of the new "struct spi_slave", that's a reference to the 
SPI slave we're talking to, i.e. whatever sits at the other end of the 
SPI bus.

If someone else wants support for slave-mode SPI, maybe we should add 
it, but that should be an entirely separate set of patches.

Haavard