On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 01, 2010 5:00 PM Grant Likely wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Marek Szyprowski >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm not convinced this is the best approach. I did look at it, but >> decided not to merge it yet. It adds code to the hottest path in the >> spi-gpio driver (not that this driver will ever be fast, but on >> bit-banged gpio, every instruction counts). > > If this is really a problem I can remove the 'if (SPI_{MOSI,MISO}_GPIO != > SPI_GPIO_NO_{MOSI,MISO})' checks. If we assume that the upper level of the > spi framework works correctly, these functions shouldn't be called if > the pin is set to NO_GPIO (the master device has SPI_MASTER_NO_{TX,RX} flags > set). As I pointed in the last thread, such peculiar platforms had better assign some virtual gpio for such non-existent miso/mosi, rather than imposing these extra checks on most of the normal platforms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ spi-devel-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
