Hi Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Ben Warren, > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > >> Why not enable this feature on Sequoia? Wolfgang's argument for keeping >> the patch out then goes away. IMHO, eval boards should have as many >> options enabled by default as possible, and the user then has the option >> to opt out. >> > > But there is not a single SPI device on the Sequoia board, and if you > attach one, you have to write driver code for it that implements the > chip select handling and the specific device protocol. We would have > a driver included, without any "users" (code that actually calls > these functions). > > Sure. Ignorant assumption on my part that the eval board had something like a SPI EEPROM, but it looks like there's just a header. In that case, the only advantage to including it is to ensure the driver keeps up with any API changes. > In other words, this driver is a prerequisite for other SPI device > drivers that might follow later, but as is, it's just a waste of > memory. > > It would just waste memory to enable it. > > OK, but who cares about memory on an evaluation board? Their entire raison-d'etre is to serve as a starting point for custom boards. I know if I was building a board with this CPU and planned on using SPI, it would be much nicer if the driver was included than having to search the message boards. Just my 2c. > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk > > regards, Ben _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
