[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240618-oxpecker-of-ideal-mastery-db59f8-mkl@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:58:07 +0200
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: Stefan Moring <stefan.moring@...hnolution.nl>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, broonie@...nel.org,
shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de, linux-imx@....com,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Bigler <benjamin@...ler.one>, Stefan Bigler <linux@...ler.io>,
Carlos Song <carlos.song@....com>, Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
Adam Butcher <adam@...samine.co.uk>, Thorsten Scherer <T.Scherer@...elmann.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: Increase imx51 ecspi burst length based on transfer
length
Hi Stefan,
On 28.06.2023 15:20:39, Stefan Moring wrote:
> In our application we send ~80kB at 10MHz. The total transfer time
> went from ~80ms to 67ms, so that would be a reduction of 15%.
> I tested it on an IMX8MM platform.
I'm currently debugging a problem with spi-imx, HW CS and SPI_CS_WORD on
torvalds/master. The breakage goes back this patch.
I'm wondering what is your setup you have optimized with this patch?
- Are you using HW or GPIO CS?
- What are bits_per_word?
- What's the length of the spi_transfer?
I'm asking because with a 8, 16 or 32 bit-per-word setting, the driver
should use dynamic_burst on the imx8mm, which will overwrite the burst
length in spi_imx_push().
regards,
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung Nürnberg | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists