On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 08:13:57PM +0100, Martin Sperl wrote: > > It doesn't look like that, it looks like the update first resets things > > to a default and then writes in the new value. It also appears to > > affect the entire array rather than just one value.
> The problem is that there is only _ONE_ register in the SOC that affects > all Polarity flags. OK, I think this makes sense but I'd need to check the code again - please make sure this is clear when you resubmit. > > The other thing is that as with all your other code this is full of > > coding style issues, these will need to be fixed. Please, as previously > > requested, read and follow CodingStyle. > I had been reading the coding styles document and tried to implement > everything recommended there in the patch. The biggest things I remember were a lack of spaces around operators and the opening braces for functions not being on a line by themselves. > > This doesn't require a bus lock, it only affects the individual device. > It would require a bus_lock for ANY change to SPI_CS_HIGH. That's just never going to be a sane thing to change on the fly though. Changes to things that don't affect /CS are more interesting here.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
