On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:51:06PM -0000, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On some SPI controllers it is not feasible to transfer arbitrary amount
> of data at once.
>
> When the limit on transfer size is a few kilobytes at least it makes
> sense to use the SPI hardware rather than reverting to gpio driver.
> + /*
> + * on some hardware transfer size may be constrained
> + * the limit may depend on device transfer settings
> + */
> + size_t (*max_transfer_size)(struct spi_device *spi);
Heiner submitted a *very* similar patch just now with a straight
variable plus accessor instead of a function and using a name with _msg.
I'm ambivalent on the implementation but prefer the naming here since
that's more the limitation we're trying to express I think (some
hardware does have limiations about multple transfers too). Can the two
of you come up with something that works for both of you?
Am 01.12.2015 um 20:58 schrieb Mark Brown:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:51:06PM -0000, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On some SPI controllers it is not feasible to transfer arbitrary amount
>> of data at once.
>>
>> When the limit on transfer size is a few kilobytes at least it makes
>> sense to use the SPI hardware rather than reverting to gpio driver.
>
>> + /*
>> + * on some hardware transfer size may be constrained
>> + * the limit may depend on device transfer settings
>> + */
>> + size_t (*max_transfer_size)(struct spi_device *spi);
>
> Heiner submitted a *very* similar patch just now with a straight
> variable plus accessor instead of a function and using a name with _msg.
> I'm ambivalent on the implementation but prefer the naming here since
> that's more the limitation we're trying to express I think (some
> hardware does have limiations about multple transfers too). Can the two
> of you come up with something that works for both of you?
>
Sure .. Just one inquiry:
When you say "the naming here" you refer to Michal's or my version?
Actually I like in Michal's hook that it directly takes a struct spi_device.
This saves the caller one level of indirection as the caller usually will
deal with a spi_device and not a spi_master.
If you're fine with Michal's version then this is also fine with me,
especially as the functionality is the same.
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> Sure .. Just one inquiry:
> When you say "the naming here" you refer to Michal's or my version?
Michael's (transfer).
> Actually I like in Michal's hook that it directly takes a struct spi_device.
> This saves the caller one level of indirection as the caller usually will
> deal with a spi_device and not a spi_master.
> If you're fine with Michal's version then this is also fine with me,
> especially as the functionality is the same.
OK.
On 1 December 2015 at 20:58, Mark Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:51:06PM -0000, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On some SPI controllers it is not feasible to transfer arbitrary amount
>> of data at once.
>>
>> When the limit on transfer size is a few kilobytes at least it makes
>> sense to use the SPI hardware rather than reverting to gpio driver.
>
>> + /*
>> + * on some hardware transfer size may be constrained
>> + * the limit may depend on device transfer settings
>> + */
>> + size_t (*max_transfer_size)(struct spi_device *spi);
>
> Heiner submitted a *very* similar patch just now with a straight
> variable plus accessor instead of a function and using a name with _msg.
> I'm ambivalent on the implementation but prefer the naming here since
> that's more the limitation we're trying to express I think (some
> hardware does have limiations about multple transfers too). Can the two
> of you come up with something that works for both of you?
Sorry, missed there is a patch because it shows in the middle of the
discussion for me.
I don't really care which one it is so long as I can get the last
patch in this series based on it.
Thanks
Michal