lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/2] spi: Add support for Zynq Ultrascale+ MPSoC GQSPI controller
From
Hi Mark,

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Punnaiah Choudary Kalluri
<punnaiah.choudary.kalluri@xilinx.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@kernel.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:34 PM
>> To: Harini Katakam
>> Cc: Ranjit Abhimanyu Waghmode; Rob Herring; Pawel Moll; Mark Rutland;
>> ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk; Kumar Gala; Michal Simek; Soren Brinkmann;
>> devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-
>> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-spi; Punnaiah Choudary Kalluri;
>> ran27jit@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] spi: Add support for Zynq Ultrascale+ MPSoC
>> GQSPI controller
>>
>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 08:43:54PM +0530, Harini Katakam wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:57:51PM +0530, Ranjit Waghmode wrote:
>>
>> > > Why is there a default case here? That's going to men we try to handle
>> > > any random chip select that gets passed in as pointing to this lower
>> > > device which doesn't seem right. The fact that this is trying to handle
>> > > mirroring of the chip select to two devices is also raising alarm bells
>> > > here...
>>
>> > This SPI controller has two CS lines and two data bus.
>> > Two devices can be connected to these and either the upper or the
>> > lower or both (Explained below) can be selected.
>>
>> > When two flash devices are used, one of the HW configurations in
>> > which they can be connected is called "parallel" mode where they
>>
>> I know what wiring chip selects in parallel is but that's not the
>> question - the question is about the handling of the default case.
>
> Yes, we should not handle default case here. We will change this.
>

Yes, that's right. I was just elaborating the mirroring part.

>>
>> > >> +static void zynqmp_qspi_chipselect(struct spi_device *qspi, bool
>> is_high)
>> > >> +{
>>
>> > >> + if (is_high) {
>> > >> + /* Manually start the generic FIFO command */
>> > >> + zynqmp_gqspi_write(xqspi, GQSPI_CONFIG_OFST,
>> > >> + zynqmp_gqspi_read(xqspi, GQSPI_CONFIG_OFST) |
>> > >> + GQSPI_CFG_START_GEN_FIFO_MASK);
>>
>> > > No, this is broken - setting the chip select should set the chip select,
>> > > it shouldn't have any impact on transfers. Transfers should be started
>> > > in the transfer operations.
>>
>> > This is the only way to assert the CS. It doesn't start transferring any data.
>>
>> OK, then you can't implement a separate set_cs() operation and shouldn't
>> be trying to do so. This will break in multiple ways when the framework
>> tries to use the operations separately. You probably need to implement
>> a single flat transfer() operation.
>
> As we said it will not start any data transfer. In order to set chip select (chip select only) we need to
> 1. Frame a control word with following parameters like the chip select that we would like to set and hold time
> 2. Update the control word to fifo
>
> To have a performance advantage (may be not trivial) we are executing this fifo entry along with the first
> Data transfer entry in transfer function so that we can avoid waiting for fifo empty in set_cs function.
>
> We will ensure CS assert by waiting till the fifo empty in set_cs function and justify the what the
> Function supposed do.
>

Yes, if we wait for cs assert to be executed (which is just the time
controller takes to fetch this command
and execute), this set_cs will be independent as expected. The
framework can use it anytime.

Regards,
Harini


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-29 12:41    [W:0.094 / U:27.560 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site