[PATCH 1/2 v2] spi: s3c64xx: use "cs-gpios" from spi node instead of "cs-gpio"

Tomasz Figa tomasz.figa at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 12:43:59 PDT 2014

On 10.06.2014 20:09, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Naveen / Sylwester,
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Naveen Krishna Ch
> <naveenkrishna.ch at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Can we support both "cs-gpio" and "cs-gpios" for backward compatibility ?
>>> After your change all DTBs using the original pattern will not work with
>>> new kernels any more. At least I would expect such backward compatibility
>>> maintained for few kernel releases.
>> The reason behind removing the "cs-gpio" or not providing backward
>> compatibility was
>> 1. Since spi-core started using "cs-gpios" string from spi device node
>> several months ago.
>>   The spi-s3c64xx.c driver is partially broken for more than 6 months.
>> 2. Supporting "cs-gpio" would add extra bit of code.
>> I've corrected the dts files that were using "cs-gpio" under
>> "controller-data"(child node)
>> to use "cs-gpio" from spi device node (parent node).
>> I will make another version if you insist.
> Yup, as near as I can tell this has been broken since (3146bee spi:
> s3c64xx: Added provision for dedicated cs pin).  That landed June 25th
> of 2013 into the SPI tree.
> ...so clearly nobody was really testing Samsung's SPI driver on ToT
> Linux.  1 year of unnoticed brokenness seems like enough time that we
> could do away with the old code.  If someone comes out of the woodwork
> and claims a dire need to support the old binding then it can be added
> then.
> In-tree users of this appear to be:
> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-smdkv310.dts:
>  cs-gpio = <&gpc1 2 0>;
> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4412-trats2.dts:
>  cs-gpio = <&gpb 5 0>;
> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts:
>  cs-gpio = <&gpa2 5 0>;
> ...and I guess nobody has bothered using the SPI flash on those boards
> for the last year?

On Trats2, it's actually a camera sensor, not SPI flash...

Still, that's really a shame that:

a) such patch went in (i.e. its brokenness was not spotted in review),
b) the regression was not spotted.

Anyway, IMHO this justifies removing the old binding then.

Best regards,

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list