Hi Adrian,
On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 13:18, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-05-02 at 13:13 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Commit cf9e4784f3bde3e4 ("spi: sh-msiof: Add slave mode support") added
> > a new mode member to the sh_msiof_spi_info structure, but did not update
> > any board files. Hence all users in board files rely on the default
> > being host mode.
> >
> > Make this unambiguous by configuring host mode explicitly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/sh/boards/mach-ecovec24/setup.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/sh/boards/mach-ecovec24/setup.c b/arch/sh/boards/mach-ecovec24/setup.c
> > index 6f13557eecd6bb21..a641e26f8fdf7369 100644
> > --- a/arch/sh/boards/mach-ecovec24/setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/sh/boards/mach-ecovec24/setup.c
> > @@ -825,6 +825,7 @@ static struct spi_board_info spi_bus[] = {
> > /* MSIOF0 */
> > static struct sh_msiof_spi_info msiof0_data = {
> > .num_chipselect = 1,
> > + .mode = MSIOF_SPI_HOST,
> > };
> >
> > static struct resource msiof0_resources[] = {
>
> Is MSIOF_SPI_HOST actually the correct identifier?
>
> I'm asking because the commit above lists only MISOF_SPI_MASTER and _SLAVE:
>
> enum {
> MSIOF_SPI_MASTER,
> MSIOF_SPI_SLAVE,
> };
>
> Unless the identifiers were renamed a few years later to avoid political issues.
They were indeed renamed in commit 1cb3ebc417fe6cc5 ("spi:
sh-msiof: switch to use modern name") in v6.6.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
