On Sunday 11 May 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > 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.
sure sure ... i agree with you completely. just floating the idea in case anyone else actually cared about it. i certainly dont :). -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
