Subject: [PATCH 1/2] spi: rockchip: add support for "cs-gpios" dts property

From: [email-masked] (jeffy)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:12:24 +0800

Hi Heiko,

thanx for your comments.

On 06/12/2017 04:36 PM, Heiko St?bner wrote:
> Am Montag, 12. Juni 2017, 16:26:07 CEST schrieb jeffy:
>> Hi Shawn,
>>
>> On 06/12/2017 03:15 PM, Shawn Lin wrote:
>>> Hi Jeffy,
>>>
>>> On 2017/6/12 14:14, Jeffy Chen wrote:
>>>> Support using "cs-gpios" property to specify cs gpios.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <[email-masked]>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-rockchip.txt       |  2 +
>>>>    drivers/spi/spi-rockchip.c                         | 52
>>>>
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>
>>>>    2 files changed, 54 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-rockchip.txt
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-rockchip.txt
>>>> index 83da493..02171b2 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-rockchip.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-rockchip.txt
>>>
>>> The changes for doc should be another patch, and...
>>
>> but i saw others didn't separate them:
>> cf9e478 spi: sh-msiof: Add slave mode support
>> 23e291c spi: rockchip: support "sleep" pin configuration
>
> it sometimes falls through the cracks, but having dt-binding patches
> separate is meant to make it easier on DT-Maintainers to find
> patches they need to look at.
ok, will do.
>
>
>>>> +    if (!data->cs_gpio_requested) {
>>>> +        ret = gpio_request_one(spi->cs_gpio, flags,
>>>> +                       dev_name(&spi->dev));
>>>> +        if (!ret)
>>>> +            data->cs_gpio_requested = 1;
>>>> +    } else
>>>> +        ret = gpio_direction_output(spi->cs_gpio, flags);
>>>
>>> need brace around 'else' statement. Also I don't see data used
>>> elsewhere, so you need these code above.
>>
>> ok.
>> and the cs_gpio_requested is to mark cs_gpio requested, because the
>> setup func might be called multiple times, we only need to request gpio
>> at the first time.
>
> Aren't the gpiod* functions meant to be used for new things?
> Also you might actually do a bit of error handling there, especially
> EPROBE_DEFER.
so you are suggesting to use gpiod* functions here to replace gpio_* 
functions right?
> Heiko