[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d5f58e82-2644-3e16-f27a-de72ed8ab74d@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 09:46:26 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Xiangsheng Hou (侯祥胜)
<Xiangsheng.Hou@...iatek.com>,
"miquel.raynal@...tlin.com" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org"
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"gch981213@...il.com" <gch981213@...il.com>,
"vigneshr@...com" <vigneshr@...com>,
"angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com"
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
"richard@....at" <richard@....at>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Benliang Zhao (赵本亮)
<Benliang.Zhao@...iatek.com>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Bin Zhang (章斌) <bin.zhang@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] dt-bindings: spi: mtk-snfi: Add read latch latency
property
On 08/12/2022 02:15, Xiangsheng Hou (侯祥胜) wrote:
>>>
>>> There have two rx related timing properties in spi-peripheral-
>>> props.
>>> The rx-sample-delay-ns have been used in Mediatek snfi driver to
>>> adjust
>>> controller sample delay.
>>> However another spi-rx-delay-us is in microseconds. Take 52MHz for
>>> example, the clock cycle will be 19.23ns which lower than 1us. This
>>> may
>>> not easy to by one clock cycle.
>>>
>>
>> I agree, but nothing prevents you from adding your own property for
>> that.
>>
>> I propose "mediatek,rx-latch-latency-ns" or "mediatek,rx-latency-ns",
>> so that
>> we can specify the delay in nanoseconds: in that case, when we
>> specify 19ns,
>> the driver will safely round that resulting in 52MHz == 19.23ns =>
>> 19ns valid.
>
> Will be fixed in next series.
I am fine with this approach, but after explanations I was also fine
with clock cycles as unit. It's still quite specific unit and I think
several timings on buses are clock-cycle dependent, not time dependent.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists