| Message ID | 20200912140730.1.Ie67fa32009b94702d56232c064f1d89065ee8836@changeid (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/3] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Use the FIFO even more | expand |
On Sat 12 Sep 16:07 CDT 2020, Douglas Anderson wrote: > In commit 902481a78ee4 ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO") I > explained that the maximum size we could program the FIFO was > "mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3" but that I chose "mas->tx_fifo_depth()" > because I was worried about decreased bandwidth. > > Since that time: > * All the interconnect patches have landed, making things run at the > proper speed. > * I've done more measurements. > > This lets me confirm that there's really no downside of using the FIFO > more. Specifically I did "flashrom -p ec -r /tmp/foo.bin" on a > Chromebook and averaged over several runs. Wouldn't there be a downside in the form of setting the watermark that close to the full FIFO we have less room for being late handling the interrupt? Or is there some mechanism involved that will prevent the FIFO from being overrun? Regards, Bjorn > > Before: It took 6.66 seconds and 59669 interrupts fired. > After: It took 6.66 seconds and 47992 interrupts fired. > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- > > drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c b/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c > index 0dc3f4c55b0b..7f0bf0dec466 100644 > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c > @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int spi_geni_init(struct spi_geni_master *mas) > * Hardware programming guide suggests to configure > * RX FIFO RFR level to fifo_depth-2. > */ > - geni_se_init(se, mas->tx_fifo_depth / 2, mas->tx_fifo_depth - 2); > + geni_se_init(se, mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3, mas->tx_fifo_depth - 2); > /* Transmit an entire FIFO worth of data per IRQ */ > mas->tx_wm = 1; > ver = geni_se_get_qup_hw_version(se); > -- > 2.28.0.618.gf4bc123cb7-goog >
Hi, On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 3:53 PM Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Sat 12 Sep 16:07 CDT 2020, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > In commit 902481a78ee4 ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO") I > > explained that the maximum size we could program the FIFO was > > "mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3" but that I chose "mas->tx_fifo_depth()" > > because I was worried about decreased bandwidth. > > > > Since that time: > > * All the interconnect patches have landed, making things run at the > > proper speed. > > * I've done more measurements. > > > > This lets me confirm that there's really no downside of using the FIFO > > more. Specifically I did "flashrom -p ec -r /tmp/foo.bin" on a > > Chromebook and averaged over several runs. > > Wouldn't there be a downside in the form of setting the watermark that > close to the full FIFO we have less room for being late handling the > interrupt? Or is there some mechanism involved that will prevent > the FIFO from being overrun? Yeah, I had that worry too, but, as described in 902481a78ee4 ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO"), it doesn't seem to be a problem. From that commit: "We are the SPI master, so it makes sense that there would be no problems with overruns, the master should just stop clocking." -Doug
On Sat 12 Sep 20:11 CDT 2020, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 3:53 PM Bjorn Andersson > <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat 12 Sep 16:07 CDT 2020, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > > > In commit 902481a78ee4 ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO") I > > > explained that the maximum size we could program the FIFO was > > > "mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3" but that I chose "mas->tx_fifo_depth()" > > > because I was worried about decreased bandwidth. > > > > > > Since that time: > > > * All the interconnect patches have landed, making things run at the > > > proper speed. > > > * I've done more measurements. > > > > > > This lets me confirm that there's really no downside of using the FIFO > > > more. Specifically I did "flashrom -p ec -r /tmp/foo.bin" on a > > > Chromebook and averaged over several runs. > > > > Wouldn't there be a downside in the form of setting the watermark that > > close to the full FIFO we have less room for being late handling the > > interrupt? Or is there some mechanism involved that will prevent > > the FIFO from being overrun? > > Yeah, I had that worry too, but, as described in 902481a78ee4 ("spi: > spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO"), it doesn't seem to be a > problem. From that commit: "We are the SPI master, so it makes sense > that there would be no problems with overruns, the master should just > stop clocking." > Actually read the message of the linked commit now. I share your view that this indicates that the controller does something wrt the clocking to handle this case. Change itself looks good, so: Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> Regards, Bjorn
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 14:07:59 -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > In commit 902481a78ee4 ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO") I > explained that the maximum size we could program the FIFO was > "mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3" but that I chose "mas->tx_fifo_depth()" > because I was worried about decreased bandwidth. > > Since that time: > * All the interconnect patches have landed, making things run at the > proper speed. > * I've done more measurements. > > [...] Applied to https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next Thanks! [1/2] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Use the FIFO even more commit: fc129a43aa2705770dc45b2e9c506d2617fd5863 [2/2] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Don't program CS_TOGGLE again and again commit: 14ac4e049dc1183440960f177b60b54357e54d90 All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted. You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed. If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing patches will not be replaced. Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying to this mail. Thanks, Mark
On 9/13/2020 2:37 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote: > In commit 902481a78ee4 ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO") I > explained that the maximum size we could program the FIFO was > "mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3" but that I chose "mas->tx_fifo_depth()" > because I was worried about decreased bandwidth. > > Since that time: > * All the interconnect patches have landed, making things run at the > proper speed. > * I've done more measurements. > > This lets me confirm that there's really no downside of using the FIFO > more. Specifically I did "flashrom -p ec -r /tmp/foo.bin" on a > Chromebook and averaged over several runs. > > Before: It took 6.66 seconds and 59669 interrupts fired. > After: It took 6.66 seconds and 47992 interrupts fired. Reviewed-by: Akash Asthana <akashast@codeaurora.org> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- > >
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c b/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c index 0dc3f4c55b0b..7f0bf0dec466 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int spi_geni_init(struct spi_geni_master *mas) * Hardware programming guide suggests to configure * RX FIFO RFR level to fifo_depth-2. */ - geni_se_init(se, mas->tx_fifo_depth / 2, mas->tx_fifo_depth - 2); + geni_se_init(se, mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3, mas->tx_fifo_depth - 2); /* Transmit an entire FIFO worth of data per IRQ */ mas->tx_wm = 1; ver = geni_se_get_qup_hw_version(se);
In commit 902481a78ee4 ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO") I explained that the maximum size we could program the FIFO was "mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3" but that I chose "mas->tx_fifo_depth()" because I was worried about decreased bandwidth. Since that time: * All the interconnect patches have landed, making things run at the proper speed. * I've done more measurements. This lets me confirm that there's really no downside of using the FIFO more. Specifically I did "flashrom -p ec -r /tmp/foo.bin" on a Chromebook and averaged over several runs. Before: It took 6.66 seconds and 59669 interrupts fired. After: It took 6.66 seconds and 47992 interrupts fired. Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> --- drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)