linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] spi: cadence-quadspi: Add multi-chipselect support for Intel LGM SoC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201021151329.t24cli4rnk6esttm@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 20:43:29 +0530
From:   Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>
To:     "Ramuthevar,Vadivel MuruganX" 
        <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     <vigneshr@...com>, <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>,
        <broonie@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        <simon.k.r.goldschmidt@...il.com>, <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        <richard@....at>, <cheol.yong.kim@...el.com>,
        <qi-ming.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] spi: cadence-quadspi: Add multi-chipselect
 support for Intel LGM SoC

Hi,

On 21/10/20 10:55AM, Ramuthevar,Vadivel MuruganX wrote:
> From: Ramuthevar Vadivel Murugan <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> Add multiple chipselect support for Intel LGM SoCs,
> currently QSPI-NOR and QSPI-NAND supported.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ramuthevar Vadivel Murugan <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/spi/spi-cadence-quadspi.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-cadence-quadspi.c b/drivers/spi/spi-cadence-quadspi.c
> index 3d017b484114..3bf6d3697631 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-cadence-quadspi.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-cadence-quadspi.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
>  
>  /* Capabilities */
>  #define CQSPI_SUPPORTS_OCTAL		BIT(0)
> +#define CQSPI_SUPPORTS_MULTI_CHIPSELECT BIT(1)
>  
>  struct cqspi_st;
>  
> @@ -75,6 +76,7 @@ struct cqspi_st {
>  	bool			is_decoded_cs;
>  	u32			fifo_depth;
>  	u32			fifo_width;
> +	u32			num_chipselect;
>  	bool			rclk_en;
>  	u32			trigger_address;
>  	u32			wr_delay;
> @@ -1070,6 +1072,14 @@ static int cqspi_of_get_pdata(struct cqspi_st *cqspi)
>  		return -ENXIO;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (!cqspi->use_direct_mode) {

Shouldn't this be guarded by CQSPI_SUPPORTS_MULTI_CHIPSELECT instead of 
cqspi->use_direct_mode?

Also, cqspi->use_direct_mode would always be false here because 
cqspi_of_get_pdata() is called before we set it...

> +		if (of_property_read_u32(np, "num-chipselect",
> +					 &cqspi->num_chipselect)) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "couldn't determine number of cs\n");
> +			return -ENXIO;

... so even if someone doesn't want to use multiple chip selects they 
would have to specify this property or the probe will fail, which is the 
case on J721E EVM for example.

> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	cqspi->rclk_en = of_property_read_bool(np, "cdns,rclk-en");
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -1307,6 +1317,9 @@ static int cqspi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	cqspi->current_cs = -1;
>  	cqspi->sclk = 0;
>  
> +	if (ddata->hwcaps_mask & CQSPI_SUPPORTS_MULTI_CHIPSELECT)
> +		master->num_chipselect = cqspi->num_chipselect;
> +
>  	ret = cqspi_setup_flash(cqspi);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "failed to setup flash parameters %d\n", ret);
> @@ -1396,6 +1409,7 @@ static const struct cqspi_driver_platdata am654_ospi = {
>  };
>  
>  static const struct cqspi_driver_platdata intel_lgm_qspi = {
> +	.hwcaps_mask = CQSPI_SUPPORTS_MULTI_CHIPSELECT,
>  	.quirks = CQSPI_DISABLE_DAC_MODE,
>  };
>  
> -- 
> 2.11.0
> 

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments India