View Change

2 comments:

• File bitbang_spi.c:

  • Patch Set #2, Line 47: static void bitbang_spi_set_sck_set_mosi(const struct bitbang_spi_master * const master, int sck, int mosi)

    Now that I looked again, the `sck` parameter is not needed, its […]

    How strongly do you feel about this? ;-)

    I'm about to push a new patchset and I haven't acted on this one. Partly because we get in a mess with verbs[1] and partly because I prefer the code with the explicit set here if only because the mapping onto the unoptimized primitives is super obvious.

    So I will change it if you really want it changed but if it
    is marginal for you then I'll leave as it is!

    
    [1]
    Your comment applies equally to what is currently
    called bitbang_spi_set_sck_get_mosi() so "clear" won't
    work because it partners with "set" which now has
    two meanings... maybe "raise" and "lower" would work.

  • Patch Set #2, Line 157: bitbang_spi_set_sck(master, 0);

    "For the first cycle, ..." that is actually redundant with the […]

    Reading this back after a break I'm not quite sure whether "nothing to argue about" means I should leave the code as is or if you still want to explore CPOL=1, CPHA=1 further.

    Either way to save you having to check the code then the patchset I'm about to push is still CPOL=0, CPHA=0.

To view, visit change 26946. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.