On Thursday 14 February 2008, Eric Miao topquoted (sigh): > 2. This patch is one of the series of patches refactoring PXA/ARM SSP > code, and the other patches are tightly PXA/ARM related, and David > reviewed part of the patch if not all.
I skimmed that bit. Time to track all the details of the PXA overhaul is lacking. > And indeed yes, I will fire another patch correcting the doc, maybe > after another round of SSP code clean-up. That doc update should happen before 2.6.25-final ... > > From: Ned Forrester [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > I wonder if you have seen the two patches submitted by Eric Miao that > > appeared in the 2.6.25 git tree on 1/26/08 for drivers/spi/pxa2xx-spi.c > > and related files. ... > > > > Are these changes compatible with the grand scheme of things? I don't > > have much visibility of the direction in which the kernel or the spi > > core is heading, so I can't tell. It's more "PXA overhaul" stuff. The *SSP modules should become more generally usable, not unlike what drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c does, so that they can easily be used for SPI, I2S, or whatever. It'd probably be good to have a dma-capable core, for example, that gets re-used. - Dave > > Eric: > > > > It seems there should have been a related patch to > > Documentation/spi/pxa2xx to change the examples for platform setup, > > along the lines of what your patch calls for in > > arch/arm/mach-pxa/lubbock.c, and to add information about struct ssp_device. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ spi-devel-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
