On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:21:49PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 08:39:52PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Most users of dw-apb-ssi use spi-{r,t}x-bus-width of 1, however the
> > Canaan k210 is wired up for a width of 4.
> > Quoting Serge:
> > The modern DW APB SSI controllers of v.4.* and newer also support the
> > enhanced SPI Modes too (Dual, Quad and Octal). Since the IP-core
> > version is auto-detected at run-time there is no way to create a
> > DT-schema correctly constraining the Rx/Tx SPI bus widths.
> > /endquote
> >
> > As such, drop the restriction on only supporting a bus width of 1.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220620205654.g7fyipwytbww5757@mobilestation/
> > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Serge, I dropped your R-b when I swapped to the default
> > property since it changed the enum.
> > ---
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml | 6 ------
> > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml
> > index e25d44c218f2..0a43d6e0ef91 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml
> > @@ -143,12 +143,6 @@ patternProperties:
> > minimum: 0
> > maximum: 3
> >
>
> > - spi-rx-bus-width:
> > - const: 1
> > -
> > - spi-tx-bus-width:
> > - const: 1
> > -
>
> My comment was:
> > > > You can just use a more relaxed constraint "enum: [1 2 4 8]" here
> > >
> > > 8 too? sure.
> Then Rob said:
> > Then no constraints needed because the common definition already has
> > this presumably.
>
> IMO preserving the device-specific constraints even if they match the
> generic ones has some maintainability benefits. What if you get to
> discover a new HW which supports Hexal mode?
x16? Wouldn't we be back to parallel NOR and the problems with parallel
buses?
> Then you would have
> needed to update the common schema constraints. But that would have
> caused permitting the unsupported bus-mode for all the schemas, which
> isn't correct. So as I see it the explicit bus-width enumeration would
> be ok to have here. But I'll leave it for Rob to make a final
> decision.
Assuming a new width does appear, it's just a matter of time before the
DW block has a new rev supporting it too, so there's 2 places to update.
Also, a given platform may pinout less than the block supports, so you
can't ever be 100% sure an out of range value is in a DT.
But either way is okay with me. If you do keep constraints, you only
need 'maximum: 8'.
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Rob
