Date:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:11:00 +0100
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
To:     Yogesh Narayan Gaur <yogeshnarayan.gaur@....com>
Cc:     Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>,
        "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "marek.vasut@...il.com" <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "computersforpeace@...il.com" <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] spi: spi-mem: Add driver for NXP FlexSPI
 controller

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:25:55 +0000
Yogesh Narayan Gaur <yogeshnarayan.gaur@....com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Boris Brezillon [mailto:boris.brezillon@...tlin.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:39 PM
> > To: Yogesh Narayan Gaur <yogeshnarayan.gaur@....com>
> > Cc: Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>; linux-
> > mtd@...ts.infradead.org; marek.vasut@...il.com; broonie@...nel.org; linux-
> > spi@...r.kernel.org; devicetree@...r.kernel.org; robh@...nel.org;
> > mark.rutland@....com; shawnguo@...nel.org; linux-arm-
> > kernel@...ts.infradead.org; computersforpeace@...il.com; linux-
> > kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] spi: spi-mem: Add driver for NXP FlexSPI controller
> > 
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:59:54 +0000
> > Yogesh Narayan Gaur <yogeshnarayan.gaur@....com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi Boris,
> > >  
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Boris Brezillon [mailto:boris.brezillon@...tlin.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:20 PM
> > > > To: Yogesh Narayan Gaur <yogeshnarayan.gaur@....com>
> > > > Cc: Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>; linux-
> > > > mtd@...ts.infradead.org; marek.vasut@...il.com; broonie@...nel.org;
> > > > linux- spi@...r.kernel.org; devicetree@...r.kernel.org;
> > > > robh@...nel.org; mark.rutland@....com; shawnguo@...nel.org;
> > > > linux-arm- kernel@...ts.infradead.org; computersforpeace@...il.com;
> > > > linux- kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] spi: spi-mem: Add driver for NXP FlexSPI
> > > > controller
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:43:56 +0000
> > > > Yogesh Narayan Gaur <yogeshnarayan.gaur@....com> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > > > Thus, in LUT preparation we have assigned only the base address.
> > > > > > > Now if I have assigned ahb_buf_size to FSPI_FLSHXXCR0 register
> > > > > > > then for  
> > > > > > read/write data beyond limit of ahb_buf_size offset I get data corruption.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why would you do that? We have the ->adjust_op_size() exactly
> > > > > > for this reason, so, if someone tries to do a spi_mem_op with
> > > > > > data.nbytes > ahb_buf_size you should return an error.
> > > > > >  
> > > > > Let me explain my implementation with example. If I have to write
> > > > > data of size  
> > > > 0x100 bytes at offset 0x1200 for CS1, I would program as below:  
> > > > > In func nxp_fspi_select_mem(), would set value of controller
> > > > > address space  
> > > > size, memmap_phy_size, to FSPI_FLSHA2CR0 and rest all FSPI_FLSHXXCR0 as  
> > 0.  
> > > > > Value of memmap_phy_size is 0x10000000 i.e. 256 MB for my
> > > > > LX2160ARDB  
> > > > target.  
> > > > > Then in nxp_fspi_prepare_lut(), I would prepare LUT ADDR with
> > > > > address length  
> > > > requirement 3/4 byte for NOR or 1/2/3/4 bytes for NAND flash.  
> > > > > Also for LUT_NXP_WRITE would program data bytes as 0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then inside func nxp_fspi_do_op(), set register FSPI_IPCR0 as the
> > > > > address offset i.e. 0x1200 and in register FSPI_IPCR1 program the
> > > > > data size to write i.e. 0x100
> > > > >
> > > > > If, as suggested if I tries to mark value of register
> > > > > FSPI_FLSHA2CR0 equal to  
> > > > ahb_buf_size (0x800), then access for address 0x1200 gives me wrong
> > > > data. This is because as per the controller specification access to
> > > > flash connected at CS1 can be performed under range of FSPI_ FLSHA1CR0  
> > and FSPI_ FLSHA2CR0.  
> > > >
> > > > Don't you have a way to set an offset to apply to the address
> > > > accessed through the AHB? And if you don't, how will it work if your
> > > > mapping is smaller than the flash size?  
> > >
> > > Write operations are triggered using IP commands instead of AHB command.
> > > For Read AHB command is used and in this we are adding the offset when  
> > performing memcpy_fromIO operation  
> > >       memcpy_fromio(op->data.buf.in, (f->ahb_addr + op->addr.val),
> > > len);
> > >
> > > AHB/IP operations are independent of the way how CS got selected. CS  
> > selection depends, e.g. CS1 on the value of register FSPI_FLSHA1CR0 and
> > FSPI_FLSHA2CR0.  
> > >
> > > Mapping can never going to be smaller than the connected flash size as per  
> > discussion with the Board design team and if it's possible by user manually
> > changes the non-soldered part then flash area beyond complete mapping is not
> > accessible.  
> > > On LX2160ARDB, with mapping of 256MB, for now we are having 4 flash  
> > devices connected with size as 64 MB. If user wants he can have only one single
> > flash with flash size of 256MB.
> > 
> > Given that the dirmap interface has now been merged and the MTD side of
> > things is soon to be merged, I'd recommend you to implement it in your
> > v6 and only use non-AHB accesses for the ->exec_op() implementation.  
> 
> This would going to be performance hit if I would use non-AHB accesses for ->exec_op().

Not if you implement the dirmap hooks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists