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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230517223007.178432-1-boerge.struempfel@gmail.com>
 <CAOMZO5CqMMCCOsAB3YgJUUampE=iZru57d=qoX13-GkSaaC5gg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEktqcuMrqiwDfGM=SAoHiKPY-hupS+jipt=6Tasr1q8VUvRQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEktqcuMrqiwDfGM=SAoHiKPY-hupS+jipt=6Tasr1q8VUvRQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 20:52:56 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOMZO5CJwwKmDYRxnny2JOrwucGn=q7+9xKqk_NSvZ_wyNSHEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] spi: add SPI_MOSI_IDLE_LOW mode bit
To:     =?UTF-8?B?QsO2cmdlIFN0csO8bXBmZWw=?= <boerge.struempfel@gmail.com>
Cc:     bstruempfel@ultratronik.de, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com,
        amit.kumar-mahapatra@amd.com, broonie@kernel.org,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 8:20=E2=80=AFPM B=C3=B6rge Str=C3=BCmpfel
<boerge.struempfel@gmail.com> wrote:

> My bad. Thanks for letting me know. Just to clarify: I put the
> changelog directly below
> the first ---? And do I then put another --- between the changelog and
> the following
> include/uapi/linux/spi/spi.h | 3 ++- line?  or is there just a
> new-line seperating them.

It should look like this:

Commit log line 1
Commit log line 2
...
Commit log line n

Signed-off-by: Your name <your@email.com>
---
Changes since v3:
- Bla bla bla

> And if you don't mind my trivial questions, am I supposed to write a
> cover letter for
> the patch-stack? I seem to find contradictory answers to this question on=
line.

Yes, for a patch series having a cover letter is helpful.

> > Should tools/spi/spidev_test.c be changed to include this new
> > mosi-idle-low option?
>
> Until now I actually wasn't aware of this tool. However on first
> glance, it seems
> reasonable to add this mode bit. I can certainly add this mode bit to
> the spidev_test
> if desired.

Yes, that would be great.

> While looking through the code, I noticed, that the latest two
> additions to the spi->mode
> (SPI_3WIRE_HIZ and SPI_RX_CPHA_FLIP) are also missing from this tool. Is =
this
> by design, or should they then be included as well?

Looks like these two are missing and would be good to get them included as =
well.