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

[jeffy]

Hi Heiko,

thanx for your comments.

On 06/12/2017 04:36 PM, Heiko StÃbner 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 <jeffy.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > >    .../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