On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:53 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> I wouldn't even bother. It's not actively dangerous to try and use
>> PSC{4,5} in SPI mode. It just not going to work. Besides, the
>> MPC5200 common code already checks for an invalid PSC number when
>> setting the clock divisor.
>>
>> Hav
> I wouldn't even bother. It's not actively dangerous to try and use
> PSC{4,5} in SPI mode. It just not going to work. Besides, the
> MPC5200 common code already checks for an invalid PSC number when
> setting the clock divisor.
>
> Have you seen cases of users trying to do the wrong thing wit
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Add checks to allow only PSCs capable of SPI.
> Also turn printk to dev_err while we are here.
Hi Wolfram,
I wouldn't even bother. It's not actively dangerous to try and use
PSC{4,5} in SPI mode. It just not going to work. Besides, the
MP
Add checks to allow only PSCs capable of SPI.
Also turn printk to dev_err while we are here.
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang
Cc: Grant Likely
Cc: David Brownell
---
Grant, if the patch is OK, maybe it can also go via your tree?
drivers/spi/mpc52xx_psc_spi.c |9 -
1 files changed, 4 i
