Hi, > >>> 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. See below. > > 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. But who is using expensive NOR flash for bulk storage anyway? You're only mentioning parallel mode. Also the performance numbers were just about the parallel mode. What about stacked mode? Because there's a chance that parallel mode works without modification of the core (?). > >>> 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. Well, AMD could have side stepped all this if they had just integrated a normal OSPI flash controller, which would have the same requirements regarding the pins (if not even less) and it would have been *easy* to integrate it into the already available ecosystem. That was what my initial question was about. Why did you choose two QSPI ports instead of one OSPI port. > >> 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. Great! -michael
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
