| Message ID | 20200226093703.19765-3-p.yadav@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mtd: spi-nor: add xSPI Octal DTR support | expand |
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:06:54 +0530 Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com> wrote: > These two DT properties express DTR receive and transmit capabilities of > a SPI flash and controller. Introduce two new mode bits: SPI_RX_DTR and > SPI_TX_DTR which correspond to the new DT properties. Set these bits > when the two corresponding properties are present in the device tree. > Also update the detection of unsupported mode bits to include the new > bits. > > Signed-off-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com> > --- > drivers/spi/spi.c | 10 +++++++++- > include/linux/spi/spi.h | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi.c > index 38b4c78df506..25c8ed9343f9 100644 > --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c > @@ -1927,6 +1927,13 @@ static int of_spi_parse_dt(struct spi_controller *ctlr, struct spi_device *spi, > } > } > > + /* Device DTR mode. */ > + if (of_property_read_bool(nc, "spi-tx-dtr")) > + spi->mode |= SPI_TX_DTR; > + > + if (of_property_read_bool(nc, "spi-rx-dtr")) > + spi->mode |= SPI_RX_DTR; > + If this DTR mode is only used in spi-mem, maybe we shouldn't add those flags. SPI mem devices are usually smart enough to advertise what they support, and the subsystem in charge of those devices (in this specific case, spi-nor) will check what the controller supports using spi_mem_supports_op(). The only case we might have to deal with at some point is board level limitations (disabling DTR because the routing prevents using this mode). > if (spi_controller_is_slave(ctlr)) { > if (!of_node_name_eq(nc, "slave")) { > dev_err(&ctlr->dev, "%pOF is not called 'slave'\n", > @@ -3252,7 +3259,8 @@ int spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi) > bad_bits &= ~SPI_CS_HIGH; > ugly_bits = bad_bits & > (SPI_TX_DUAL | SPI_TX_QUAD | SPI_TX_OCTAL | > - SPI_RX_DUAL | SPI_RX_QUAD | SPI_RX_OCTAL); > + SPI_RX_DUAL | SPI_RX_QUAD | SPI_RX_OCTAL | > + SPI_TX_DTR | SPI_RX_DTR); > if (ugly_bits) { > dev_warn(&spi->dev, > "setup: ignoring unsupported mode bits %x\n", > diff --git a/include/linux/spi/spi.h b/include/linux/spi/spi.h > index 6d16ba01ff5a..bf1108318389 100644 > --- a/include/linux/spi/spi.h > +++ b/include/linux/spi/spi.h > @@ -183,6 +183,8 @@ struct spi_device { > #define SPI_TX_OCTAL 0x2000 /* transmit with 8 wires */ > #define SPI_RX_OCTAL 0x4000 /* receive with 8 wires */ > #define SPI_3WIRE_HIZ 0x8000 /* high impedance turnaround */ > +#define SPI_RX_DTR 0x10000 /* receive in DTR mode */ > +#define SPI_TX_DTR 0x20000 /* transmit in DTR mode */ > int irq; > void *controller_state; > void *controller_data;
Hi Boris, On 27/02/20 05:23PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:06:54 +0530 > Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com> wrote: > > > These two DT properties express DTR receive and transmit capabilities of > > a SPI flash and controller. Introduce two new mode bits: SPI_RX_DTR and > > SPI_TX_DTR which correspond to the new DT properties. Set these bits > > when the two corresponding properties are present in the device tree. > > Also update the detection of unsupported mode bits to include the new > > bits. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com> > > --- > > drivers/spi/spi.c | 10 +++++++++- > > include/linux/spi/spi.h | 2 ++ > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi.c > > index 38b4c78df506..25c8ed9343f9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c > > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c > > @@ -1927,6 +1927,13 @@ static int of_spi_parse_dt(struct spi_controller *ctlr, struct spi_device *spi, > > } > > } > > > > + /* Device DTR mode. */ > > + if (of_property_read_bool(nc, "spi-tx-dtr")) > > + spi->mode |= SPI_TX_DTR; > > + > > + if (of_property_read_bool(nc, "spi-rx-dtr")) > > + spi->mode |= SPI_RX_DTR; > > + > > If this DTR mode is only used in spi-mem, maybe we shouldn't add those > flags. SPI mem devices are usually smart enough to advertise what they > support, and the subsystem in charge of those devices (in this specific > case, spi-nor) will check what the controller supports > using spi_mem_supports_op(). The only case we might have to deal with > at some point is board level limitations (disabling DTR because the > routing prevents using this mode). Yes, being able to handle board-level limitations is the main reason behind this change. There should be a way to over-ride the use of DTR for a given board. And IIUC, SPI allows doing the same for Rx and Tx buswidth. So I don't see why we should deviate from that model. > > if (spi_controller_is_slave(ctlr)) { > > if (!of_node_name_eq(nc, "slave")) { > > dev_err(&ctlr->dev, "%pOF is not called 'slave'\n", > > @@ -3252,7 +3259,8 @@ int spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi) > > bad_bits &= ~SPI_CS_HIGH; > > ugly_bits = bad_bits & > > (SPI_TX_DUAL | SPI_TX_QUAD | SPI_TX_OCTAL | > > - SPI_RX_DUAL | SPI_RX_QUAD | SPI_RX_OCTAL); > > + SPI_RX_DUAL | SPI_RX_QUAD | SPI_RX_OCTAL | > > + SPI_TX_DTR | SPI_RX_DTR); > > if (ugly_bits) { > > dev_warn(&spi->dev, > > "setup: ignoring unsupported mode bits %x\n", > > diff --git a/include/linux/spi/spi.h b/include/linux/spi/spi.h > > index 6d16ba01ff5a..bf1108318389 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/spi/spi.h > > +++ b/include/linux/spi/spi.h > > @@ -183,6 +183,8 @@ struct spi_device { > > #define SPI_TX_OCTAL 0x2000 /* transmit with 8 wires */ > > #define SPI_RX_OCTAL 0x4000 /* receive with 8 wires */ > > #define SPI_3WIRE_HIZ 0x8000 /* high impedance turnaround */ > > +#define SPI_RX_DTR 0x10000 /* receive in DTR mode */ > > +#define SPI_TX_DTR 0x20000 /* transmit in DTR mode */ > > int irq; > > void *controller_state; > > void *controller_data; >
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 15:18:31 +0530 Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com> wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi.c > > > index 38b4c78df506..25c8ed9343f9 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c > > > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c > > > @@ -1927,6 +1927,13 @@ static int of_spi_parse_dt(struct spi_controller *ctlr, struct spi_device *spi, > > > } > > > } > > > > > > + /* Device DTR mode. */ > > > + if (of_property_read_bool(nc, "spi-tx-dtr")) > > > + spi->mode |= SPI_TX_DTR; > > > + > > > + if (of_property_read_bool(nc, "spi-rx-dtr")) > > > + spi->mode |= SPI_RX_DTR; > > > + > > > > If this DTR mode is only used in spi-mem, maybe we shouldn't add those > > flags. SPI mem devices are usually smart enough to advertise what they > > support, and the subsystem in charge of those devices (in this specific > > case, spi-nor) will check what the controller supports > > using spi_mem_supports_op(). The only case we might have to deal with > > at some point is board level limitations (disabling DTR because the > > routing prevents using this mode). > > Yes, being able to handle board-level limitations is the main reason > behind this change. There should be a way to over-ride the use of DTR > for a given board. And IIUC, SPI allows doing the same for Rx and Tx > buswidth. So I don't see why we should deviate from that model. My point is, maybe it should be expressed as a limitation, rather than made mandatory for the non-limited case (default to supported, unless stated otherwise). I think we already had this discussion with Rob and Mark regarding the QUAD/DUAL flags, which made conversion from spi-nor to spi-mem non-backward compatible for some controllers (some spi-nor controller drivers were considering the absence of spi-{tx,rx}-width as 'use the max supported by the controller if the device supports it' while the spi subsystem goes for the more conservative 'use single SPI if spi-{tx,rx}-width is missing'). If we introduce a new property, maybe it'd be a good thing to think twice before taking this decision. FWIW, I'd vote for a 'spi-no-dtr' property to express board-level limitations. Orthogonal to this is the question of where we should put those flags, and I'm still not convinced we need that at the spi level (at least not yet).
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi.c index 38b4c78df506..25c8ed9343f9 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c @@ -1927,6 +1927,13 @@ static int of_spi_parse_dt(struct spi_controller *ctlr, struct spi_device *spi, } } + /* Device DTR mode. */ + if (of_property_read_bool(nc, "spi-tx-dtr")) + spi->mode |= SPI_TX_DTR; + + if (of_property_read_bool(nc, "spi-rx-dtr")) + spi->mode |= SPI_RX_DTR; + if (spi_controller_is_slave(ctlr)) { if (!of_node_name_eq(nc, "slave")) { dev_err(&ctlr->dev, "%pOF is not called 'slave'\n", @@ -3252,7 +3259,8 @@ int spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi) bad_bits &= ~SPI_CS_HIGH; ugly_bits = bad_bits & (SPI_TX_DUAL | SPI_TX_QUAD | SPI_TX_OCTAL | - SPI_RX_DUAL | SPI_RX_QUAD | SPI_RX_OCTAL); + SPI_RX_DUAL | SPI_RX_QUAD | SPI_RX_OCTAL | + SPI_TX_DTR | SPI_RX_DTR); if (ugly_bits) { dev_warn(&spi->dev, "setup: ignoring unsupported mode bits %x\n", diff --git a/include/linux/spi/spi.h b/include/linux/spi/spi.h index 6d16ba01ff5a..bf1108318389 100644 --- a/include/linux/spi/spi.h +++ b/include/linux/spi/spi.h @@ -183,6 +183,8 @@ struct spi_device { #define SPI_TX_OCTAL 0x2000 /* transmit with 8 wires */ #define SPI_RX_OCTAL 0x4000 /* receive with 8 wires */ #define SPI_3WIRE_HIZ 0x8000 /* high impedance turnaround */ +#define SPI_RX_DTR 0x10000 /* receive in DTR mode */ +#define SPI_TX_DTR 0x20000 /* transmit in DTR mode */ int irq; void *controller_state; void *controller_data;
These two DT properties express DTR receive and transmit capabilities of a SPI flash and controller. Introduce two new mode bits: SPI_RX_DTR and SPI_TX_DTR which correspond to the new DT properties. Set these bits when the two corresponding properties are present in the device tree. Also update the detection of unsupported mode bits to include the new bits. Signed-off-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com> --- drivers/spi/spi.c | 10 +++++++++- include/linux/spi/spi.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)