Hi Angelo, On 07/10/17 08:22, Angelo Dureghello wrote: > On 06/10/2017 06:04, Greg Ungerer wrote: >> On 06/10/17 09:06, Angelo Dureghello wrote: >>> Changes to spi-fsl-dspi.c driver is minimal, just mainly had to >>> get some few settings from board c file. >>> >>> Now the issue is how to proceed, likely, spi-list gouys would complain >>> i add board/platform support to the driver.>>> Is it better i send a patch >>> for this stmark2 board.c before ? >> >> Sure, start with that. I don't mind if you send spi changes relevant to >> the 54411 here either for review. >> > > well, to post the stmark2 patch there is only one issue btw: > stmark2.c contains a dspi-patch reference. > > #include <linux/spi/spi-fsl-dspi.h> > > The above is a new file of few lines i created for the dspi > board.c support. > > So, maybe i should start posting the dspi patch. I attach the patches for > your review, the patch n2 (spi-nor.c) is already under testing, so you can > ignore it.
I don't see any problems with patch 0001. I certainly have no problem with the m5441x clock changes, and the DSPI address defines in patch 0003. In their own patch I could apply those now. In patch 0003 I would avoid superfluous white space changes - there appears to be a couple of blank lines added/removed. You can only ask what the spi-fsl-dspi driver maintainers think about adding board support. Along with what Geert said I have been thinking about doing devicetree support for the ColdFire boards for a while. But I have had no spare cycles to really do any work on it. Regards Greg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
