lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 2/2] spi: Add driver for IMG SPFI controller
Date
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@kernel.org]
> Sent: 12 November 2014 23:06
> To: Andrew Bresticker
> Cc: James Hartley; Rob Herring; Pawel Moll; Mark Rutland; Ian Campbell;
> Kumar Gala; Grant Likely; Ezequiel Garcia; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-spi@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] spi: Add driver for IMG SPFI controller
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 02:54:57PM -0800, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> wrote:
>
> > >> drivers/spi/spi-img.c | 703
> > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > > How about spi-img-spfi? That way if someone makes another SPI
> > > controller (say a more generic one, this one seems flash
> > > specialized) there won't be a collision.
>
> > Despite the name, I believe this controller is used for generic SPI
> > stuff as well. I'm not sure if there is a separate one which is more
> > generic (James?).

There is another generic img spi hardware block which is not register
compatible and doesn't have the flash interface which is also in existing
SoC's. There is a separate img-spi driver for that which has not yet been
mainlined. I think spi-img-spfi would be ok for this driver. There is also
another sfc (Serial Flash Controller), block in the pipeline, so that could
then be called spi-img-sfc.

>
> It would still be better to use a name less impressively generic - this is an
> entire company, not even a product line.
>
> > >> + cpu_relax();
>
> > > Seems random - we already relax in the data transfer?
>
> > We don't relax in the transfers - would that be a better place to put
> > it? I thought it was better here since we reach this point once the
> > TX FIFO has filled or RX FIFO has emptied.
>
> Oh, that was the FIFO drain I was thinking of. I guess here is fine.
>
> > >> + if (tx_buf)
> > >> + spfi_flush_tx_fifo(spfi);
> > >> + spfi_disable(spfi);
>
> > > What does the enable and disable actually do? Should this be
> > > runtime PM?
>
> > It starts/stops the transfer. The control registers (bit clock,
> > transfer mode, etc.) must be programmed before the enable bit is set
> > and the bit does not clear itself upon completion of the transfer. I
> > don't think it makes sense to have this be part of runtime PM.
>
> Perhaps these functions need to be called start() and stop() then - the
> names sound like they gate the IP?
>
> > > This will unconditionally claim to have handled an interrupt even if
> > > it didn't get any interrupt status it has ever heard of. At the
> > > very least it should log unknown interrupts, ideally return IRQ_NONE
> > > though since it seems to be a clear on read interrupt that's a bit
> misleading.
>
> > There's a clear register actually (see the writel() above), but yes,
> > an error and returning IRQ_NONE sound appropriate in the event of an
> > unexpected interrupt.
>
> Don't add the error print - the interrupt core has diagnostics already and it
> won't be nice if the interrupt ends up shared. My recommendation was
> intended as an either/or.

James.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-13 17:41    [W:0.056 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site