On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 18:47:08 +0300
Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 18:26, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> Indeed our IP limited to 4 address cycle (bytes) do we have NOR Flash with
> more than 32bit address?
spi-mem is not only about spi-nor, it can be used for any kind of
memory (NOR, NAND, SRAM, ...) or even to communicate with an FGPA, so
yes, you have to take care of that.
> I will add this limitation thanks!
>
> > 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.
> >
> there is a limitation in a single transfer but I handle it in the
> npcm_fiu_manualwrite
> function.
> Do you suggest to use ->adjust_op() instead?
Yes, should be exposed through ->adjust_op() => the caller needs to
know when a new operation (one containing an opcode+address) is issued,
because sometimes such splits are not supported by the memory.
