On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 09:35:58AM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> 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
That's what I already suggested, though I would have expected a bigger
value. For example, something more than the cost or electrical limit of
what's practical. I don't know that is though. We don't want to be
updating it frequently.
> - dropping the maxItems here because in the end no bounding is necessary
This will implicitly set the max to 2 based on minItems. That's because
most of the time we want an exact number of entries.
> - 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
>
