From: sr@denx.de (Stefan Roese)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:10:57 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2] spi: orion.c: Add direct access mode
In-Reply-To: <20160323125448.GM2566@sirena.org.uk>
References: <1458663893-13766-1-git-send-email-sr@denx.de>
 <20160322173546.40d24cc2@free-electrons.com> <56F17684.2010307@denx.de>
 <20160323113316.GH2566@sirena.org.uk> <56F2852C.5010006@denx.de>
 <20160323125448.GM2566@sirena.org.uk>
Message-ID: <56F295E1.4030505@denx.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Mark,

On 23.03.2016 13:54, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:59:40PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
>> On 23.03.2016 12:33, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> No, there's two separate things here.  The big problem with what you
>>> originally sent was that you were defining a window per SPI device but
>>> this is a part of the SPI controller so having to change windows per
>>> device is just going to make the code more complex.
> 
>> I'm sorry, but this sentence is not totally clear to me: Do you mean
>> that the "more complex" code in v2 with the MBus window reconfiguration
>> is not good? Or do you mean that in the RFC version, the switching
>> between the SPI devices was too complex?
> 
> I haven't looked at your new code at all.  What I'm saying is that
> specifying a per-device MBus window seems like pointless complexity.

I don't necessarily share this opinions. Code-wise, its less complex
that re-configuring (removing the old and creating the new) the MBus
window. But I have no strong feeling here. Whatever is decided that
should be used, I can go with.

Thomas, Arnd (or anyone else?), do you have any comments or preferences
which way to go here?

Thanks,
Stefan