David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Steven A. Falco wrote:
>> Your changes to bitbang_work look good.
>
> You tested?
>
Yes - I built a kernel with your patch, combined with the changes I
just posted to linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org as:
"[PATCH v1] Make spi_ppc4xx.c tolerate 0 bits-per
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> Your changes to bitbang_work look good.
You tested?
> I'm not clear on why you first set do_setup = -1 but later
> use do_setup = 1. Perhaps they should both be "1". Other than that,
>
> Acked-by: Steven A. Falco
The "-1" is for the init
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 16:36:58 Steven A. Falco wrote:
> > I have to admit that I didn't find the time to rework the driver after
> > David's latest review. Frankly, this could take some time since I'm
> > currently busy with other tasks. So it would be great if someone else
> > (Steven?) might
Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009 16:25:20 Steven A. Falco wrote:
>>> Speaking of spi_ppc4xx issues ... I still have an oldish
>>> copy in my review queue, it needs something like the
>>> appended patch. (Plus something to accept bpw == 0.)
>>> Is there a newer version?
>> That is a
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 16:25:20 Steven A. Falco wrote:
> > Speaking of spi_ppc4xx issues ... I still have an oldish
> > copy in my review queue, it needs something like the
> > appended patch. (Plus something to accept bpw == 0.)
> > Is there a newer version?
>
> That is a question for Stefan.
David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Steven A. Falco wrote:
>> m25p80 spi0.0: invalid bits-per-word (0)
>>
>> This message comes from spi_ppc4xx_setupxfer. I believe your patch
>> is doing what you intended (i.e. forcing an initial call to
>> spi_ppc4xx_setupxfer), but it exposes an OF
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> m25p80 spi0.0: invalid bits-per-word (0)
>
> This message comes from spi_ppc4xx_setupxfer. I believe your patch
> is doing what you intended (i.e. forcing an initial call to
> spi_ppc4xx_setupxfer), but it exposes an OF / SPI linkage problem.
>
>
Sorry to cross-post this to linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org in the middle
of the story. I started this in linux-...@lists.infradead.org, but
there are OF issues here, and I'd like the PPC folks to be aware of
the issues.
David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Steven A. Falco wrote:
>> David Bro
