Hi Amit, amit.kumar-mahapatra@xxxxxxx wrote on Wed, 14 Aug 2024 07:13:35 +0000: > Hello Miquel, > > > > Based on the inputs/suggestions from Tudor, i am planning to add a new > > > layer between the SPI-NOR and MTD layers to support stacked and > > > parallel configurations. This new layer will be part of the spi-nor > > > and located in mtd/spi-nor/ > > > > For now I don't think you need a totally generic implementation. As long as > > there is only one controller supporting these modes, I'd say this is not super > > relevant. > > IMHO, there should be a general solution since this isn't limited to just > one controller. Any controller can support stacked mode with multiple > native-cs or multiple gpio-cs, or with a combination of a native-cs and a > gpio-cs. That's not what was initially discussed. The Xilinx use case was: a controller is managing two devices "at the same time" transparently from the host. So the two flashes appear like a single one and thus, are described like a single one. You don't need anything in the bindings nor in the core to manage two flashes connected to the same controller otherwise. The only use case the Xilinx model was bringing, was to consider the storage bigger from a host perspective and thus be able to store files across the device boundary natively. > For parallel configurations, there are other controllers from > Microchip and some flash devices that operate similarly to AMD's parallel > mode. Yes, Tudor reminded me about these. > > > This layer would perform the following tasks: > > > - During probing, store information from all the connected flashes, > > > whether in stacked or parallel mode, and present it as a single device > > > to the MTD layer. > > > - Register callbacks through this new layer instead of spi-nor/core.c and > > > handle MTD device registration. > > > - In stacked mode, select the appropriate spi-nor flash based on the > > > address provided by the MTD layer during flash operations. > > > - Manage flash crossover operations in stacked mode. > > > - Ensure both connected flashes are identical in parallel mode. > > > - Handle odd byte count requests from the MTD layer during flash > > > operations in parallel mode. > > > > > > For implementing this the current DT binding need to be updated as > > > follows. > > > > So you want to go back to step 1 and redefine bindings? Is that worth? > > The current bindings are effective if we only support identical > flash devices or flashes of the same make but with different sizes > connected in stacked mode. However, if we want to extend stacked support > to include flashes of different makes in stacked mode, The only actual feature the stacked mode brings is the ability to consider two devices like one. This is abstracted by hardware, this is a controller capability. The only way this can work is if the two storage devices are of the same kind and accept the same commands/init cycles. If you consider two different devices, then there is no hardware abstraction anymore, the controller is no longer "smart" enough and you are back to the standard situation with two devices connected using their own independent CS, known by the host. In this case the "stacked-mode" bindings no longer apply. You need to describe the two chips independently in the DT, and your stacked feature in the controller can no longer be used. You need other bindings to support this case because it is a different situation. For this case, there was a mtd-concat approach (which was never merged). But this is really something different than the stacked mode in your controller because there is no specific hardware feature involved, it's just pure software. > the current > bindings may not be adequate. That's why I suggested updating the bindings > to accommodate all possible scenario. > > > > > > stacked-memories DT changes: > > > - Flash size information can be retrieved directly from the flash, so it > > > has been removed from the DT binding. > > > - Each stacked flash will have its own flash node. This approach allows > > > flashes of different makes and sizes to be stacked together, as each > > > flash will be probed individually. > > > > And how will you define partitions crossing device boundaries? I believe this > > constraint has been totally forgotten in this proposal. > > According to the new binding proposal, one of the two flash nodes will > have a partition that crosses the device boundary.
