On 12/22/21 10:35 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> 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
Then I would drop maxItems for stacked-memories. For parallel-memories:
does the maxItems depend on the number of I/O lines?
> - 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
>
