Hi Geert,
On 15.06.2020 16:40, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 4:06 PM Adrian Fiergolski
> <adrian.fiergolski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Sorry for the typo in the example device tree:
>>
>> On 15.06.2020 15:57, Adrian Fiergolski wrote:
>>> On 15.06.2020 15:07, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:01 PM Adrian Fiergolski
>>>> <adrian.fiergolski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 13.06.2020 09:33, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:26 PM Adrian Fiergolski
>>>>>> <adrian.fiergolski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> I have a daisy chain of three ltc2634 slaves (iio/dac/ltc2632.c)
>>>>>> connected to a single chip select of the cadence-spi master. I have the
>>>>>> impression such a configuration is supported by none of those two
>>>>>> drivers. I could try to extend both, however, I haven't found any other
>>>>>> SPI driver, where I could find implementation inspiration. Is it
>>>>>> supported by kernel?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/gpio/gpio-max3191x.c supports "#daisy-chained-devices".
>>>>>> drivers/gpio/gpio-74x164.c supports multiple shift registers through the
>>>>>> "registers-number" DT property.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So both drivers handle this in their SPI slave drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course this does not handle the mixed case, i.e. daisy-chaining
>>>>>> different types of devices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The documentation mentions only about the common 'daisy-chained-devices'
>>>>>> property (devicetree/bindings/common-properties.txt). However, in order
>>>>>> to try to implement it in the master driver, IMHO, the spi subsystem
>>>>>> would need to have a call 'no-operation' to other nodes on the
>>>>>> daisy-chain, which are not addressed by the given SPI access. Is there
>>>>>> any recommended approach to address this case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Supporting this in a generic way would indeed be nice, as it would mean
>>>>>> individual SPI slave drivers no longer have to care about it.
>>>>>> However, that may be difficult, as the master needs to known which
>>>>>> dummy (no-op) data is safe to shift through the non-addresses SPI slaves.
>>>>> In fact, the ultimate solution would be to have it solved at the level
>>>>> of the spi subsystem:
>>>>>
>>>>> * /spi_device struct/ would contain extra callback which returns msg
>>>>> to be sent for no operation.
>>>>> * spi_device struct would contain a pointer to the list describing the
>>>>> given daisy chain (list of spi_devices on the chain)
>>>>> * /spi_device struct /would contain extra u8 daisy_chain_msg_length
>>>>> indicating length of a command of the addressed device if it's on
>>>>> the daisy chain
>>>>> For example, in case of the ltc2634 device, the regular message
>>>>> consists of 24 bits, but when device is a part of a daisy chain, the
>>>>> messages are 32 bits. This 32 would be stored in
>>>>> /daisy_chain_msg_length./
>>>>> * When /spi_write/ was called (include/linux/spi/spi.h), the
>>>>> /spi_message_init_with_transfer/ would create a msg of length equal
>>>>> to a sum of /daisy_chain_msg_length/ of all devices on the chain.
>>>>> Afterwards, in /spi_message_init_with_transfers/, the actual message
>>>>> would be filled with the command of the addressed device on the
>>>>> chain and no_operation content for all other devices on the chain
>>>>> not being addressed
>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>
>>>>> * I think in such a case, the /daisy-chained-devices /property would
>>>>> be not used, as chains would be build basing on the assigned
>>>>> chipselect (reg property).
>>>> So you still have to describe the chain in DT in some way.
>>>> As there can be only a single sub node with the same unit address
>>>> (= chip select), you probably need a container with that address, which
>>>> would contain all devices in the chain, in order (unit addresses 0, 1, ...).
>>> Good point. So maybe at the level of the device tree, it could be
>>> described like that (based on the spi-cadence example):
>>>
>>> spi0: spi@ff040000 {
>>> compatible = "cdns,spi-r1p6";
>>> status = "disabled";
>>> interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
>>> interrupts = <0 19 4>;
>>> reg = <0x0 0xff040000 0x0 0x1000>;
>>> clock-names = "ref_clk", "pclk";
>>> #address-cells = <1>;
>>> #size-cells = <0>;
>>> power-domains = <&zynqmp_firmware PD_SPI_0>;
>>> daisy-chain0 : daisy_chain@0 {
>>> #address-cells = <1>;
>>> #size-cells = <0>;
>>> reg = <0>;
>>> daisy-chained-devices = 2;
>>>
>>> dac0: ltc2632@0 {
>>> compatible = "lltc,ltc2634-l12";
>>> reg = <0>;
>>> spi-max-frequency = <1000000>;
>>> };
>>> dac1: ltc2632@1 {
>>> compatible = "lltc,ltc2634-l12";
>>> reg = <1>;
>>> spi-max-frequency = <2000000>;
>>> };
>>> };
>>> };
>> spi0: spi@ff040000 {
>> compatible = "cdns,spi-r1p6";
>> status = "disabled";
>> interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
>> interrupts = <0 19 4>;
>> reg = <0x0 0xff040000 0x0 0x1000>;
>> clock-names = "ref_clk", "pclk";
>> #address-cells = <1>;
>> #size-cells = <0>;
>> power-domains = <&zynqmp_firmware PD_SPI_0>;
>> daisy-chain0 : daisy_chain@0 {
>> #address-cells = <1>;
>> #size-cells = <0>;
>> #daisy-chained-devices = <2>;
> You probably want a proper "compatible" value here instead.
> I don't think "#daisy-chained-devices" is needed, it can be derived
> from the number of subnodes.
compatible = "daisy_chain" or compatible ="simple-bus" would be better?
Both could be caught by of_register_spi_devices to populate the daisy
chain. Do you agree that at that level the chip select could be defined?
The reg properties from the sub-nodes (defining actual spi devices)
would be ignored, thus not even needed to be defined.
>
>> reg = <0>;
>>
>> dac0: ltc2632@0 {
>> compatible = "lltc,ltc2634-l12";
>> reg = <0>;
>> spi-max-frequency = <1000000>;
>> };
>> dac1: ltc2632@1 {
>> compatible = "lltc,ltc2634-l12";
>> reg = <1>;
>> spi-max-frequency = <2000000>;
>> };
>> };
>> };
>>
>>> Once a node has daisy-chanied-devices property defined,
>>> of_register_spi_device (spi.c) will interpret it as a daisy chain. I
>>> will assume, that for the given chain the lowest frequency of the whole
>>> chain should be used. When it comes to the mode, as in case of
>>> incompatibility no much can be done anyway, the mode of the addressed
>>> spi device will be used.
> Don't the modes have to agree, too?
> Else the dummy command may be interpreted differently than intended.
So, in case of incompatible mode, let's throw an error and remove
devices of the whole daisy chain, maybe?
Regards,
Adrian
