Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-206201-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:52:49 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt1@gmail.com>
Cc: Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= <noname.nuno@gmail.com>,
	Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt@analog.com>, lars@metafoo.de,
	Michael.Hennerich@analog.com, jic23@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	nuno.sa@analog.com, dlechner@baylibre.com,
	linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] spi: Add SPI mode bit for MOSI idle state
 configuration
Message-ID: <ZmMQseQUm05ctRWM@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
References: <cover.1717539384.git.marcelo.schmitt@analog.com>
 <e1d5d57f7a7481c84f64a764f9898122e278739b.1717539384.git.marcelo.schmitt@analog.com>
 <21d3314355b43ecd6acc42f9dfedec501418332d.camel@gmail.com>
 <67f94cfb-6a33-4390-8032-a942f5f7b944@sirena.org.uk>
 <ZmIXnBSk7nlviIZ3@debian-BULLSEYE-live-builder-AMD64>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zsC/K195XhebRJpD"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZmIXnBSk7nlviIZ3@debian-BULLSEYE-live-builder-AMD64>


--zsC/K195XhebRJpD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 05:10:04PM -0300, Marcelo Schmitt wrote:
> On 06/05, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > Should we assume such a thing? IOW, should this be treated as a warning or a
> > > real error? I would assume this should be a configuration error and return -
> > > EINVAL but...

> > Right, and the error message isn't very clear.

> Yeah, the message is not all that clear. I'll think of something better.
> I'm biased towards having this as a warning because I don't see this as a
> feature of usual SPI protocol but not really sure about either ...

The less usual it is the more likely it is that it won't be supported
and we should actually check that to try to avoid data corruption.

--zsC/K195XhebRJpD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmZjELAACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9BmlQf+JUslqI9U0mKHytkvvRL0JDpLxIk4U4QG9t0LRiQCyBhlDYh0HWJPuYpr
ArpMHl9BEFliiK59gU9RiIQ+FOE4MrGBq/oRmYIYmRqFB/h0RseDcx6kr/2LB0CY
jvWxpmAKSyLIR3+xJ6JAlZiL6TXxew2t/Orj3AR/RRkmkQ2ZqM8MckIirrCUZHng
wq1NYg9EVNzn+9EuMwh4z+n7401QdpkvqUrsRcd6NLaMdvSruhxna2bLHwtnxdid
++fT/i6NKtGGtq0mnGW6TAtBqua2Ao9armQrstBqrpYwPu1vCuFzlRDhSgvHIzKK
FxMBVjRAWeecDUBC0+VITFnCoIPLpg==
=TXlA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--zsC/K195XhebRJpD--