Hi Tudor,
Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Wed, 22 Dec 2021 08:22:05 +0000:
> On 12/22/21 10:05 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >
> > Hello Tudor,
>
> Hi!
>
> >
> > Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Wed, 22 Dec 2021 07:52:44 +0000:
> >
> >> On 12/21/21 7:00 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >>>
> >>> Describe two new memories modes:
> >>> - A stacked mode when the bus is common but the address space extended
> >>> with an additinals wires.
> >>> - A parallel mode with parallel busses accessing parallel flashes where
> >>> the data is spread.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> Hello Rob,
> >>>
> >>> I know the below does not pass the tests (at least the example patch 3
> >>> does not pass) but I believe the issue is probably on the tooling side
> >>> because the exact same thing with uing32-array instead is accepted. The
> >>> problem comes from the minItems/maxItems lines. Without them, this is
> >>> okay. The maxItems btw matches the "good enough value for now" idea.
> >>>
> >>> The errors I get are:
> >>>
> >>> $ make dt_binding_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-controller.yaml
> >>> LINT Documentation/devicetree/bindings
> >>> CHKDT Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema-examples.json
> >>> SCHEMA Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema-examples.json
> >>> DTEX Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-controller.example.dts
> >>> DTC Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-controller.example.dt.yaml
> >>> CHECK Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-controller.example.dt.yaml
> >>> /src/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-controller.example.dt.yaml: spi@80010000: flash@2:stacked-memories: [[268435456, 268435456]] is too short
> >>> From schema: /src/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-controller.yaml
> >>> /src/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-controller.example.dt.yaml: spi@80010000: flash@2:stacked-memories: [[268435456, 268435456]] is too short
> >>> From schema: /src/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/mxs-spi.yaml
> >>> /src/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-controller.example.dt.yaml: spi@80010000: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('#address-cells', '#size-cells', 'display@0', 'sensor@1', 'flash@2' were unexpected)
> >>> From schema: /src/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/mxs-spi.yaml
> >>> /src/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-controller.example.dt.yaml: flash@2: stacked-memories: [[268435456, 268435456]] is too short
> >>> From schema: /src/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/jedec,spi-nor.yaml
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> .../bindings/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml
> >>> index 5dd209206e88..fedb7ae98ff6 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml
> >>> @@ -82,6 +82,31 @@ properties:
> >>> description:
> >>> Delay, in microseconds, after a write transfer.
> >>>
> >>> + stacked-memories:
> >>> + description: Several SPI memories can be wired in stacked mode.
> >>> + This basically means that either a device features several chip
> >>> + selects, or that different devices must be seen as a single
> >>> + bigger chip. This basically doubles (or more) the total address
> >>> + space with only a single additional wire, while still needing
> >>> + to repeat the commands when crossing a chip boundary. The size of
> >>> + each chip should be provided as members of the array.
> >>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint64-array
> >>> + minItems: 2
> >>> + maxItems: 4
> >>
> >> Why do we define maxItems? Can't we remove this restriction?
> >
> > Rob usually prefers to bound properties, that's why we often see "good
> > enough values for now" in the bindings. If it's no longer the case it's
>
> right, I saw it.
>
> > fine to drop the maxItems property.
>
> There's no such hardware limitation as far as I know, that's why I've
> asked. Maybe Rob can advise.
Yes, I'll follow what Rob thinks its best:
- keeping maxItems: 4 (as it is), which is a good enough value
- dropping the maxItems here because in the end no bounding is necessary
- using maxItems: 2 to match the SPI CS even though in theory these two
numbers are not correlated (stacked-memories might very well be
used by other non SPI memories as well).
BTW if you're fine with the proposal your Ack is welcome ;)
Thanks,
Miquèl
