Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] spi: moving to struct gpio_desc

2017-05-29 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:30:38PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > ep93xx wasn't as hard as I'd expected so I'm pretty happy with those > changes. imx on the other hand has an annoying habit of conflating the GPIO > and native chip-select so I'm pretty sure that's broken. So, I was just looking at

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] spi: moving to struct gpio_desc

2017-05-29 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:30:38PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > ep93xx wasn't as hard as I'd expected so I'm pretty happy with those > changes. imx on the other hand has an annoying habit of conflating the GPIO > and native chip-select so I'm pretty sure that's broken. So, I was just looking at

[RFC PATCH 0/5] spi: moving to struct gpio_desc

2017-05-24 Thread Chris Packham
This is my attempt to move spi over to using struct gpio_desc. I've stopped at converting struct spi_master to gather some feedback. ep93xx wasn't as hard as I'd expected so I'm pretty happy with those changes. imx on the other hand has an annoying habit of conflating the GPIO and native

[RFC PATCH 0/5] spi: moving to struct gpio_desc

2017-05-24 Thread Chris Packham
This is my attempt to move spi over to using struct gpio_desc. I've stopped at converting struct spi_master to gather some feedback. ep93xx wasn't as hard as I'd expected so I'm pretty happy with those changes. imx on the other hand has an annoying habit of conflating the GPIO and native