[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7032fbfb-8899-d00b-a7fa-811e19d38ce2@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 15:26:28 +0000
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Ashish Singhal <ashishsingha@...dia.com>
Cc: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] spi: tegra210-quad: Add wait polling support
On 17/03/2022 09:44, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 17/03/2022 09:02, Krishna Yarlagadda wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
>>> Sent: 17 March 2022 14:25
>>> To: Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>; broonie@...nel.org;
>>> thierry.reding@...il.com; linux-spi@...r.kernel.org; linux-
>>> tegra@...r.kernel.org; Ashish Singhal <ashishsingha@...dia.com>
>>> Cc: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>; Laxman Dewangan
>>> <ldewangan@...dia.com>; robh+dt@...nel.org;
>>> devicetree@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] spi: tegra210-quad: Add wait polling support
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/03/2022 01:20, Krishna Yarlagadda wrote:
>>>> Controller can poll for wait state inserted by TPM device and
>>>> handle it.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/spi/spi-tegra210-quad.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-tegra210-quad.c
>>>> b/drivers/spi/spi-tegra210-quad.c
>>>> index a2e225e8f7f0..ecf171bfcdce 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-tegra210-quad.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-tegra210-quad.c
>>>> @@ -142,6 +142,7 @@
>>>>
>>>> #define QSPI_GLOBAL_CONFIG 0X1a4
>>>> #define QSPI_CMB_SEQ_EN BIT(0)
>>>> +#define QSPI_TPM_WAIT_POLL_EN BIT(1)
>>>>
>>>> #define QSPI_CMB_SEQ_ADDR 0x1a8
>>>> #define QSPI_ADDRESS_VALUE_SET(X) (((x) & 0xFFFF) << 0)
>>>> @@ -165,11 +166,13 @@ struct tegra_qspi_soc_data {
>>>> bool has_dma;
>>>> bool cmb_xfer_capable;
>>>> bool cs_count;
>>>> + bool has_wait_polling;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> struct tegra_qspi_client_data {
>>>> int tx_clk_tap_delay;
>>>> int rx_clk_tap_delay;
>>>> + bool wait_polling;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> struct tegra_qspi {
>>>> @@ -833,6 +836,11 @@ static u32 tegra_qspi_setup_transfer_one(struct
>>>> spi_device *spi, struct spi_tran
>>>> else
>>>> command1 |= QSPI_CONTROL_MODE_0;
>>>>
>>>> + if (tqspi->soc_data->cmb_xfer_capable)
>>>> + command1 &= ~QSPI_CS_SW_HW;
>>>> + else
>>>> + command1 |= QSPI_CS_SW_HW;
>>>> +
>>>> if (spi->mode & SPI_CS_HIGH)
>>>> command1 |= QSPI_CS_SW_VAL;
>>>> else
>>>> @@ -917,6 +925,7 @@ static int tegra_qspi_start_transfer_one(struct
>>>> spi_device *spi,
>>>>
>>>> static struct tegra_qspi_client_data
>>>> *tegra_qspi_parse_cdata_dt(struct spi_device *spi)
>>>> {
>>>> + struct tegra_qspi *tqspi = spi_master_get_devdata(spi->master);
>>>> struct tegra_qspi_client_data *cdata;
>>>>
>>>> cdata = devm_kzalloc(&spi->dev, sizeof(*cdata), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> @@ -927,6 +936,11 @@ static struct tegra_qspi_client_data
>>>> *tegra_qspi_parse_cdata_dt(struct spi_devic
>>>> &cdata->tx_clk_tap_delay);
>>>> device_property_read_u32(&spi->dev, "nvidia,rx-clk-tap-delay",
>>>> &cdata->rx_clk_tap_delay);
>>>> + if (tqspi->soc_data->has_wait_polling)
>>>> + cdata->wait_polling = device_property_read_bool
>>>> + (&spi->dev,
>>>> + "nvidia,wait-polling");
>>>> +
>>>
>>>
>>> This looks odd. Why do we need this device-tree property if it is
>>> already specified in the SoC data?
>> Soc data specifies chip is capable of wait-polling.
>> Wait polling still has to be selected on slave devices that can
>> support it.
>> I will add one line description for the properties in next version.
>
>
> I can't say I am familiar with this, but it seems that the ideal
> solution would be able to detect if this needs to be enabled depending
> on the device connected. Is that not possible?
Also, given that Grace supports 4 chip-selects per device, how does this
work if there is TPM connected to one chip-select and something else
connected to another?
Jon
--
nvpublic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists