On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:37:25PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote: > An immediate kernel crash ? :) > I mean if the developer didn't even run-check the board init code, he ought > to face a kernel crash. > On a more lenient note, probably a check like yours or !sci->num_cs > could be added.
I'd personally not actually be that upset with a BUG_ON(), my main reason for changing the code was that it was non-obvious what the source of the error was rather than the fact that things fell over. > > It did occur to me that a nice way of dealing with this would be to have > > the driver default to using the built in chip select (even if driven as > > a GPIO for the sake of code simplicity) but leave the current method > > there as an override. That way if people are using the IP block in the > > "natural" manner they'd have less to set up. > I thought about it but decided against it, for that would complicate the > driver by having to switch between two mechanism in runtime and there > are some peculiarities in the controller about clocking and CS'ing. Yeah, that's why I suggested driving it as a GPIO for simplicity - from the user point of view it doesn't matter if that's what the controller does so long as the driver figures out the chip select without external help. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ spi-devel-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
