Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 08:43:27 +0000
From:   Ben Whitten <Ben.Whitten@...rdtech.com>
To:     Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
CC:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jian-Hong Pan <starnight@...cu.edu.tw>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@...e.com>,
        Janus Piwek <jpiwek@...oweurope.com>,
        Michael Röder <michael.roeder@...et.eu>,
        Dollar Chen <dollar.chen@...ec.com>,
        Ken Yu <ken.yu@...wireless.com>,
        Steve deRosier <derosier@...il.com>,
        "linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "LoRa_Community_Support@...tech.com" 
        <LoRa_Community_Support@...tech.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hasnain Virk <Hasnain.Virk@....com>
Subject: RE: [RFC net-next 15/15] net: lora: Add Semtech SX1301

> Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 15/15] net: lora: Add Semtech SX1301
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Am 02.07.2018 um 22:43 schrieb Ben Whitten:
> >> 2) This SPI device is in turn exposing the two SPI masters that you
> >> already found below, and I didn't see a sane way to split that code out
> >> into drivers/spi/, so it's in drivers/net/lora/ here - has there been
> >> any precedence either way?
> >
> > In my work in progress driver I just register one controller for the sx1301
> with two chip selects and use the chip select information to choose the
> correct radio to send to, this is based on the DT reg information. No need to
> register two separate masters.
> 
> I had considered that and discarded it. The SX1301 has not just two CS
> registers though but also two pairs of addr, data registers. That speaks
> for two masters with a single chip-select each, unless I'm
> misunderstanding the meaning of the registers.

Based on Marks suggestion I am experimenting with using the SX1301 to expose a regmap_bus that the underlying SX1257 can attach to, so the radio has a core component, a SPI component for direct connection and this concentrator connection component. 

> >> Am 02.07.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Mark Brown:
> >>> On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 01:08:04PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +static void sx1301_radio_spi_set_cs(struct spi_device *spi, bool
> enable)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	int ret;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "setting SPI CS to %s\n", enable ? "1" : "0");
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	if (enable)
> >>>> +		return;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	ret = sx1301_radio_set_cs(spi->controller, enable);
> >>>> +	if (ret)
> >>>> +		dev_warn(&spi->dev, "failed to write CS (%d)\n", ret);
> >>>> +}
> >>>
> >>> So we never disable chip select?
> >>
> >> Not here, I instead did that in transfer_one below.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately there seems to be no documentation, only reference
> code:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/Lora-
> >> net/lora_gateway/blob/master/libloragw/src/loragw_radio.c#L121
> >> https://github.com/Lora-
> >> net/lora_gateway/blob/master/libloragw/src/loragw_radio.c#L165
> >>
> >> It sets CS to 0 before writing to address and data registers, then
> >> immediately sets CS to 1 and back to 0 before reading or ending the
> >> write transaction. I've tried to force the same behavior in this driver.
> >> My guess was that CS is high-active during the short 1-0 cycle, because
> >> if it's low-active during the register writes then why the heck is it
> >> set to 0 again in the end instead of keeping at 1... confusing.
> >>
> >> Maybe the Semtech folks CC'ed can comment how these registers work?
> >>
> >>>> +	if (tx_buf) {
> >>>> +		ret = sx1301_write(ssx->parent, ssx->regs +
> >> REG_RADIO_X_ADDR, tx_buf ? tx_buf[0] : 0);
> >>>
> >>> This looks confused.  We're in an if (tx_buf) block but there's a use of
> >>> the ternery operator that appears to be checking if we have a tx_buf?
> >>
> >> Yeah, as mentioned this RFC is not ready for merging - checkpatch.pl
> >> will complain about lines too long, and TODOs are sprinkled all over or
> >> not even mentioned. It's a Proof of Concept that a net_device could work
> >> for a wide range of spi and serdev based drivers, and on top this device
> >> has more than one channel, which may influence network-level design
> >> discussions.
> >>
> >> That said, I'll happily drop the second check. Thanks for spotting!
> >>
> >>>> +		if (ret) {
> >>>> +			dev_err(&spi->dev, "SPI radio address write
> >> failed\n");
> >>>> +			return ret;
> >>>> +		}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +		ret = sx1301_write(ssx->parent, ssx->regs +
> >> REG_RADIO_X_DATA, (tx_buf && xfr->len >= 2) ? tx_buf[1] : 0);
> >>>> +		if (ret) {
> >>>> +			dev_err(&spi->dev, "SPI radio data write failed\n");
> >>>> +			return ret;
> >>>> +		}
> >>>
> >>> This looks awfully like you're coming in at the wrong abstraction layer
> >>> and the hardware actually implements a register abstraction rather than
> >>> a SPI one so you should be using regmap as the abstraction.
> >>
> >> I don't understand. Ben has suggested using regmap for the SPI _device_
> >> that we're talking to, which may be a good idea. But this SX1301 device
> >> in turn has two SPI _masters_ talking to an SX125x slave each. I don't
> >> see how using regmap instead of my wrappers avoids this spi_controller?
> >> The whole point of this spi_controller is to abstract and separate the
> >> SX1255 vs. SX1257 vs. whatever-radio-attached into a separate driver,
> >> instead of mixing it into the SX1301 driver - to me that looks cleaner
> >> and more extensible. It also has the side-effect that we could configure
> >> the two radios via DT (frequencies, clk output, etc.).
> >
> > You want an SPI controller in the SX1301 as the down stream radios are SPI
> and could be attached directly to a host SPI bus, makes sense to have one
> radio driver and talk through the SX1301.
> > But you should use the regmap to access the SX1301 master controller
> registers.
> > Example I use with one SPI master and some clock info:
> > eg:
> > 	sx1301: sx1301@0 {
> 
> Node names should not repeat the chipset, that goes into compatible.
> 
> lora-concentrator@0?
> 
Sure

> > 		compatible = "semtech,sx1301";
> > 		reg = <0>;
> > 		#address-cells = <1>;
> > 		#size-cells = <0>;
> 
> I would still find it cleaner to have (a) sub-node(s) for the radios.
How do you mean?

> > 		spi-max-frequency = <8000000>;
> 
> Datasheet says 10 MHz, why 8 MHz?
> 
> > 		gpios-reset = <&pioA 26 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> 
> reset-gpios?
Agreed, this seems more common.

> > 		clocks = <&radio1 0>, <&clkhs 0>;
> > 		clock-names = "clk32m", "clkhs";
> >
> > 		radio0: sx1257@0 {
> 
> lora@0?
> 
> > 			compatible = "semtech,sx125x";
> 
> No wildcards in bindings please, use concrete "semtech,sx1257".
Sure

> > 			reg = <0>;
> > 			spi-max-frequency = <8000000>;
> 
> Datasheet says 10 ns - I reported to Semtech that it should probably say
> 10 MHz, too.
> 
> > 			tx;
> 
> Might we configure that on the sx1301 instead?

Well the ability for a radio to TX is a radio property really. It depends on the board which chain has the PAs on. I don’t think that its appropriate to configure this at the concentrator, it can instead discover this from the radios.

> > 			clocks = <&tcxo 0>;
> > 			clock-names = "tcxo";
> > 		};
> >
> > 		radio1: sx1257@1 {
> > 			compatible = "semtech,sx125x";
> > 			reg = <1>;
> > 			spi-max-frequency = <8000000>;
> > 			#clock-cells = <0>;
> > 			clocks = <&tcxo 0>;
> > 			clock-names = "tcxo";
> > 			clock-output-names = "clk32m";
> > 		};
> > };
> [snip]
> 
> Regards,
> Andreas
> 
> --
> SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
> HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists