Messages in this thread | | | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: spi transfer with zero length | Date | Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:58:48 -0800 |
| |
On Saturday 16 February 2008, Atsushi Nemoto wrote: > Hi. Is it legal to use zero for 'len' field of struct spi_transfer? > I mean, len=0, tx_buf=rx_buf=NULL, delay_usecs!=0.
Yes that should work ... it's uncommon, but not illegal. Some controller drivers may even handle that right!
If the delay were zero and cs_change didn't indicate a need to briefly deselect the chip, it might make sense to reject such a NOP transfer. But that's not the case you identify.
> Some SPI devices need slightly long delay before first CLK edge after > CS assertion.
For future reference ... could you identify a few such devices, and say what "long" is relative to the clock period?
Some folk have just slowed down the clock in such cases, but that's rather sub-optimal.
> To achieve this, I think inserting using a zero length > transfer before real transfers. But it seems some drivers do not > handle this case properly.
Feel free to submit patches fixing those bugs.
> Is this driver's bug, or we need additional delay field in struct > spi_device for such case?
I'd like to avoid new parameters to cover case that can already be expressed in the programming interface. Cases that can't be expressed ... different issue. I suspect any patches updating timing parameters should use nanoseconds not microseconds, fwiw.
- Dave
| |