On 7/31/24 16:11, Michael Walle wrote:
All I'm saying is that you shouldn't put burden on us (the SPI NOR
maintainers) for what seems to me at least as a niche. Thus I was
asking for performance numbers and users. Convince me that I'm
wrong and that is worth our time.
No. It is not really just feature of our evaluation boards. Customers are using
it. I was talking to one guy from field and he confirms me that these
configurations are used by his multiple customers in real products.
Which begs the question, do we really have to support every feature
in the core (I'd like to hear Tudors and Pratyush opinion here).
Honestly, this just looks like a concatenation of two QSPI
controllers.
Based on my understanding for stacked yes. For parallel no.
Why didn't you just use a normal octal controller which
is a protocol also backed by the JEDEC standard.
On newer SOC octal IP core is used.
Amit please comment.
Is it any faster?
Amit: please provide numbers.
Do you get more capacity? Does anyone really use large SPI-NOR
flashes? If so, why?
You get twice more capacity based on that configuration. I can't answer the
second question because not working with field. But both of that configurations
are used by customers. Adding Neal if he wants to add something more to it.
I mean you've put that controller on your SoC,
you must have some convincing arguments why a customer should use
it.
I expect recommendation is to use single configuration but if you need bigger
space for your application the only way to extend it is to use stacked
configuration with two the same flashes next to each other.
If you want to have bigger size and also be faster answer is parallel
configuration.
The first round of patches were really invasive regarding the core
code. So if there is a clean layering approach which can be enabled
as a module and you are maintaining it I'm fine with that (even if
the core code needs some changes then like hooks or so, not sure).
That discussion started with Miquel some years ago when he was trying to to
solve description in DT which is merged for a while in the kernel.
What's your point here? From what I can tell the DT binding is wrong
and needs to be reworked anyway.
I am just saying that this is not any adhoc new feature but configuration which
has been already discussed and some steps made. If DT binding is wrong it can be
deprecated and use new one but for that it has be clear which way to go.
And Amit is trying to figure it out which way to go.
I don't want to predict where that code should be going or how it should look
like because don't have spi-nor experience. But I hope we finally move forward
on this topic to see the path how to upstream support for it.
You still didn't answer my initial question. Will AMD support and
maintain that code? I was pushing you towards putting that code into
your own driver because then that's up to you what you are doing
there.
Of course. We care about our code and about supporting our SOC and features
which are related to it. It means yes, we will be regularly testing it and
taking care about it.
So how do we move forward? I'd like to see as little as core changes
possible to get your dual flash setup working. I'm fine with having a
layer in spi-nor/ (not sure that's how it will work with mtdcat
which looks like it's similar as your stacked flash) as long as it
can be a module (selected by the driver).
ok.
Thanks,
Michal
[Index of Archives]
[Pulseaudio]
[Linux Audio Users]
[ALSA Devel]
[Fedora Desktop]
[Fedora SELinux]
[Big List of Linux Books]
[Yosemite News]
[KDE Users]
