On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 18:26:23 +0300
Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> Thanks a lot for your comment.
>
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 18:32, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:14:48 +0300
> > Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > +
> > > +static const struct spi_controller_mem_ops npcm_fiu_mem_ops = {
> > > + .exec_op = npcm_fiu_exec_op,
> >
> > No npcm_supports_op()? That's suspicious, especially after looking at
> > the npcm_fiu_exec_op() (and the functions called from there) where the
> > requested ->buswidth seems to be completely ignored...
> >
> > Sorry but I do not fully understand it, do you mean a support for the
> buswidth?
> If yes it been done in the UMA functions as follow:
>
> uma_cfg |= ilog2(op->cmd.buswidth);
> uma_cfg |= ilog2(op->addr.buswidth) <<
> NPCM_FIU_UMA_CFG_ADBPCK_SHIFT;
> uma_cfg |= ilog2(op->data.buswidth) <<
> NPCM_FIU_UMA_CFG_WDBPCK_SHIFT;
> uma_cfg |= op->addr.nbytes << NPCM_FIU_UMA_CFG_ADDSIZ_SHIFT;
> regmap_write(fiu->regmap, NPCM_FIU_UMA_ADDR, op->addr.val);
>
Hm, the default supports_op() implementation might be just fine for
your use case. But there's one thing you still need to check: the
number of addr cycles (or address size as you call it in this driver).
Looks like your IP is limited to 4 address cycles, if I'm right, you
should reject any operation that have op->addr.nbytes > 4. I also
wonder if there's a limitation on the data size you can have on a
single transfer. If there's one you should implement ->adjust_op() too.
