Re: AW: [PATCH 1/4] spi: Add parameter for clock to rx delay

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 04:45:25PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:46:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > So, to me sounds like device tree source issue. I.e. you need to provide
> > different DT(b)s depending on the platform (and how it should be).
> > The cleanest solution (as I see not the first time people I trying quirks like
> > this to be part of the subsystems / drivers) is to make DT core (OF) to have
> > conditionals or boot-time modifications allowed.
> 
> > This, what you are doing, does not scale and smells like an ugly hack.
> 
> No, this seems like an entirely reasonable thing to have - it's just a
> property of the device, we don't need to add a DT property for it, and
> the maximum speed that the device can run at is going to vary depending
> on the ability of the controller to control the sampling point.
> 
> As people have been saying there's a particularly clear case for this
> with SPI flash which is probed at runtime and is readily substituted at
> the hardware level.

So, then the question is what does DT _actually_ describes?
If we have an autoprobe of something that doesn't work on platform A and works
on platform B, shouldn't these platforms have to have distinguishable DTs?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko