[U-Boot] [v3 PATCH 02/12] arm, at91: add spi dataflash support for the taurus board

[Jagan Teki]

On 6 November 2014 05:06, Andreas Bießmann <andreas.devel at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Dear Jagan Teki,
>
> On 31.10.14 13:31, Heiko Schocher wrote:
>> Hello Jagan,
>>
>> Am 31.10.2014 11:48, schrieb Jagan Teki:
>>> On 31 October 2014 13:00, Heiko Schocher<hs at denx.de>  wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher<hs at denx.de>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Bo Shen<voice.shen at atmel.com>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>> add Reviewed-by from Bo Shen
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - add comment from Jagan Teki:
>>>>    - remove spi_init_f() from board file
>>>>    - remove CONFIG_SYS_SPI_WRITE_TOUT from board config file
>>>>      instead define a default in the spi driver ->  new patch for v2
>>>>
>>>>   board/siemens/taurus/taurus.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   include/configs/taurus.h      | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>   2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/board/siemens/taurus/taurus.c
>>>> b/board/siemens/taurus/taurus.c
>>>> index 673b302..76609c7 100644
>>>> --- a/board/siemens/taurus/taurus.c
>>>> +++ b/board/siemens/taurus/taurus.c
>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
>>>>   #include<asm/arch/gpio.h>
>>>>   #include<asm/arch/at91sam9_sdramc.h>
>>>>   #include<atmel_mci.h>
>>>> +#include<asm/arch/at91_spi.h>
>>>> +#include<spi.h>
>>>>
>>>>   #include<net.h>
>>>>   #include<netdev.h>
>>>> @@ -127,6 +129,21 @@ int board_early_init_f(void)
>>>>          return 0;
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>> +int spi_cs_is_valid(unsigned int bus, unsigned int cs)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       return bus == 0&&  cs == 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +void spi_cs_activate(struct spi_slave *slave)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       at91_set_gpio_value(TAURUS_SPI_CS_PIN, 0);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +void spi_cs_deactivate(struct spi_slave *slave)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       at91_set_gpio_value(TAURUS_SPI_CS_PIN, 1);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Please add all these stuff in drivers/spi/atmel_spi.c
>>>
>>> Did you see any issues?
>>
>> Hmm.. this is board specific ... or?
>
> Heiko is right, this is board specific and follows the current way to
> implement spi for the atmel driver.
> But Jagan is also right, we should move this code to the driver code
> cause in fact it is parametrisation of generic code. Unfortunately this
> change will blow up this series. I think we should consider this when
> rewriting the atmel spi driver for dm, which will be done soon (but I
> think not in this merge window). Jagan, is this Ok for you?

OK, go ahead with I marked this in my TODO's

Reviewed-by: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com>

thanks!
-- 
Jagan.