Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:23:12 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Yun Zhou <yun.zhou@windriver.com>
Cc:     "linux-spi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Xue, Ying" <Ying.Xue@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?5Zue5aSN?= =?utf-8?Q?=3A?= [PATCH] spi: disable
 chipselect after complete transfer
Message-ID: <Yg0k8BH0itmczUDy@sirena.org.uk>
References: <SN6PR11MB3008AF5619B0B026836FD7429F2F9@SN6PR11MB3008.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <YgU1+cIlANAkJCAL@sirena.org.uk>
 <19c69765-8584-2e6b-25b8-7053a5afa5d4@windriver.com>
 <YgVH310gQ1sK6dlr@sirena.org.uk>
 <a5aa6dcf-e3dd-e8ff-edcb-edad96f8ddfe@windriver.com>
 <YgpOzw2rq+vAIPBU@sirena.org.uk>
 <8fd9c3ef-df64-b8ad-de6e-ef86806d53b5@windriver.com>
 <Ygpo9YT9PrQAAIH3@sirena.org.uk>
 <111c2102-5782-2740-65b0-47b0e5194ce9@windriver.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TTJc13uKD0gRs45s"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <111c2102-5782-2740-65b0-47b0e5194ce9@windriver.com>
Precedence: bulk


--TTJc13uKD0gRs45s
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 06:41:21PM +0800, Yun Zhou wrote:
> On 2/14/22 10:36 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > ever or that it'd be done this way if it were new but that doesn't mean
> > we can just randomly change the interface and potentially disrupt users.
> > Whatever else is going on the current behaviour is intentional.

> Although the logic dealing with cs_change in spi_transfer_one_message() has
> existed a long time and nobody reports issue on it, that doesn't mean it is
> correct. I think the main reason is, cs_change is only used to change

Please read and engage with what what I said above about not disrupting
existing users by just randomly changing this, silently changing how the
parameter operates will break any users that rely on the functionality
which is not going to help anyone and to the extent there is an issue
here it is only those users who would be affected in the first place.

This is not a productive discussion, please stop unless you have
concrete proposals that are considerate of existing users.

--TTJc13uKD0gRs45s
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmINJO8ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9C1KAf+PJ+hjgmc8ax0LFniWvgGVMtRikK9+FQzoAMkwPRfaJdqvFwNZt9VjO8o
xueUEqR/3e4n3P9QzW/kMKHlkX1ZBv0ShQ0uiInAmgo7lhr8a2xL/rMZOGOq2DPi
mEQQU5xLK6Bx8dobTYkFcOuwT3yg88SySh2QOFxc1c7j4pTvqq1Z4v9OC3vYh64v
xyLKszUFAxs7FiM3zDrZLjgoKfO53YvpbfNWmAWMe3Gn4pgjSzrjcl6GfkzX9bg9
NrmdtJoVZyFtj+BHA/tqav93rbPC3dhls1dFlHOUqDdH8LmwC1sHzGvbOnsQx8fU
zvE16QZMJiCKtQUUFrT5jNbo+bSshQ==
=mY3I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--TTJc13uKD0gRs45s--