Mark Brown writes:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:46:33PM +0200, Lars Povlsen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 01:31:18PM +0200, Lars Povlsen wrote:
>
>> >> + if (!nEnable) {
>> >> + /* Ensure CS toggles, so start off all disabled */
>> >> + regmap_write(dwsmscc->syscon, SPARX5_FORCE_VAL, ~0);
>> >> + /* CS override drive enable */
>> >> + regmap_write(dwsmscc->syscon, SPARX5_FORCE_ENA, 1);
>
>> >This should just be setting the value to whatever the core asked for it
>> >to be set to, the driver adding extra toggles is likely to disrupt
>> >things.
>
>> I will have a look at this again. But it was added for a reason. The
>> issue is that we have two different busses in front of the controller,
>> so we might need more settle time when switching interface.
>
>If there's a mux that needs to be handled specially that mux should be
>described in DT on the relevant boards, there shouldn't just be
>something hard coded in the controller driver.
I have been able to change this into a straight setting - no
toggling. Just needed a settle delay.
I looked at the spi-mux driver, but that is more for muxing the CS's, as
I understand - not the actual bus segment. I could use it, but it would
require encoding the bus segment into the CS (double the normal
range). Also, selecting the bus interface is tightly coupled to the
controller - its not an externally constructed board mux.
I feel the current implementation is more to the point, and easily
understandable. It just adds the "microchip,spi-interface2" DT property.
It might be that a better way exists using the spi-mux framework, and if
you have some ideas for that I'd be all ears.
>
>BTW please do not CC subsystem patches to soc@xxxxxxxxxx unless there's
>a specific reason to do so - there's no need for it, these patches won't
>get merged via there unless something is going wrong. Generally the
>subsystem maintainers take patches for a given subsystem.
Ok, duly noted.
Thank you for the comments.
---Lars
--
Lars Povlsen,
Microchip
