[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] spi/kirkwood: add weak functions board_spi_claim/release_bus

[Prafulla Wadaskar]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valentin Longchamp [mailto:valentin.longchamp at keymile.com]
> Sent: 29 May 2012 14:03
> To: Prafulla Wadaskar
> Cc: holger.brunck at keymile.com; u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] spi/kirkwood: add weak functions
> board_spi_claim/release_bus
> 
> On 05/24/2012 10:38 AM, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Valentin Longchamp [mailto:valentin.longchamp at keymile.com]
> >> Sent: 16 May 2012 16:24
> >> To: Prafulla Wadaskar; holger.brunck at keymile.com
> >> Cc: Valentin Longchamp; u-boot at lists.denx.de; Holger Brunck;
> Prafulla
> >> Wadaskar
> >> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] spi/kirkwood: add weak functions
> >> board_spi_claim/release_bus
> >>
> >> This allows a final, board specific, step in the claim/relase_bus
> >> function for the SPI controller, which may be needed for some
> hardware
> >> designs.
> >
> > NAK, this is not needed if earlier two patches in the patch series
> are in place.
> >
> 
> In our case, this is still needed. As I had already explained you in
> the
> previous discussion, even with the generic approach, our hardware
> design
> requires one access to an additional signal (a GPIO) to configure an
> external HW
> multiplexer which is present to electrically remove the Nand Flash
> device from
> the signals used by the SPI bus and put it back when the accesses are
> over.
> 
> That's why my first implementation was only relying on these weak
> functions.

Okay, got it, on your board, apart from MPPs, you need additional control.

BTW: if NF_CEn could have been used this additional GPIO would not have needed.
But any ways we cannot change your h/w now :-)
So in that case it makes sense to expose these weak functions.

Regards..
Prafulla . . .