Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 09 May 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: >> This patch hasn't been tested on all the boards involved, so there are >> probably a few issues. For now, I'd like some comments on the new >> interface -- if it looks good, we should spend some additional effort >> to validate that it doesn't introduce any breakage. I could use some >> help with this. > > just a quick glance, but do we care about U-Boot being a SPI slave ? i only > noticed this as i was working on the Blackfin I2C driver recently and > realized that the I2C framework has defines for U-Boot to act as a slave. > not that the Blackfin driver even has any of the slave stuff implemented, i > just noticed it ;).
I can't see much reason to add support for U-Boot acting as a SPI slave, and these patches certainly doesn't attempt to make that happen. If you're thinking of the new "struct spi_slave", that's a reference to the SPI slave we're talking to, i.e. whatever sits at the other end of the SPI bus. If someone else wants support for slave-mode SPI, maybe we should add it, but that should be an entirely separate set of patches. Haavard ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
