On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:56:01AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:13:00AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:14:28AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

It looked like there was an unanswered question about if patch 2 was
needed or not?  Marek?

quoted

I cannot find an unanswered question. There is a workaround that Marek
introduced in 6fd8b8503a0dcf66510314dc054745087ae89f94 that might not be
needed any more with my patch 2. So it's the other way round: If Marek's
problem is fixed by patch 2, my patch is the better one. I have problems
with SCK changing polarity when CS is already asserted in the presence
of Marek's change. After my change they are gone. Even if this
workaround is superflous now, it doesn't hurt and IMHO the question if
it is needed or not should not delay my fix.

That was the unanswered question.

FTR: your reference to an "unanswered question" wasn't optimal either. I
had to search my inbox for a while to determine what you could have
meant :-)

Please include human readable descriptions of things like commits and
issues being discussed in e-mail in your mails, this makes them much
easier for humans to read especially when they have no internet access.

I'm always willing to learn how to make my mails more cooperative.

I'd hope that even when offline you have a linux.git at hand to resolve
what I meant with "6fd8b8503a0dcf66510314dc054745087ae89f94". Apart from
this unannotated commit hash it's not clear to me what else could have
been improved here.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel