On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Certain EEPROMS have a size that is larger than the number of address
> bytes would allow, and store the MSB of the address in bit 3 of the
> instruction byte.
>
> This can be described in platform data using EE_INSTR_BIT3_IS_ADDR, or
> in DT using the obsolete legacy "at25,addr-mode" property.
> But currently there exists no non-deprecated way to describe this in DT.
>
> Hence extend the existing "address-width" DT property to allow
> specifying 9, 17, or 25 address bits, and enable support for that in the
> driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> EEPROMs using 9 address bits are common (e.g. M95040, 25AA040/25LC040).
> Do EEPROMs using 17 or 25 address bits, as mentioned in
> include/linux/spi/eeprom.h, really exist?
> Or should we just limit it to a single odd value (9 bits)?
At least for the real Atmel parts, only the AT25040 part uses odd (8 +
1 bit) addressing.
AT25M01 uses 3-byte addressing (it needs 17 bits).
So I tend to believe EEPROMs using 16 + 1 or 24 + 1 address bits (with the
extra bit in the instruction byte) do not exist?
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at25.txt | 4 +++-
> drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at25.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at25.txt
> index 1d3447165c374f67..d00779e4ab4377b9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at25.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at25.txt
> @@ -6,7 +6,9 @@ Required properties:
> - spi-max-frequency : max spi frequency to use
> - pagesize : size of the eeprom page
> - size : total eeprom size in bytes
> -- address-width : number of address bits (one of 8, 16, or 24)
> +- address-width : number of address bits (one of 8, 9, 16, 17, 24, or 25).
> + For odd values, the MSB of the address is sent as bit 3 of the instruction
> + byte, before the address byte(s).
Alternatively, we can drop the binding change, i.e. keep on using
address-width = <8> for 512-byte '040...
> Optional properties:
> - spi-cpha : SPI shifted clock phase, as per spi-bus bindings.
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c
> index 5afe4cd165699060..a50a0f16fa0e1d1d 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c
> @@ -275,6 +275,10 @@ static int at25_fw_to_chip(struct device *dev, struct spi_eeprom *chip)
> "Error: missing \"address-width\" property\n");
> return -ENODEV;
> }
> + if (val & 1) {
> + chip->flags |= EE_INSTR_BIT3_IS_ADDR;
> + val -= 1;
> + }
... and handle it here like:
if (chip->byte_len == 2U << val)
chip->flags |= EE_INSTR_BIT3_IS_ADDR;
However, that would IMHO be a bit confusing, as the "address-width"
property is no longer the real address width, but indicates how many bits
are specified in address bytes sent after the read/write command.
So "address-bytes" = 1, 2, or 3 would be more correct ;-)
Or deprecate this whole "specify parameters using DT properties" business,
and derive them from the compatible value. But that would mean adding a
large and ever growing table to an old driver...
Thoughts?
Thanks again!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
