On 26.01.2024 22:20, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 2:17 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024, at 20:23, Sam Protsenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:33 AM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 02:50:01PM +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Allow SoCs that have multiple instances of the SPI IP with different
>>>>> FIFO sizes to specify their FIFO size via the "samsung,spi-fifosize"
>>>>> device tree property. With this we can break the dependency between the
>>>>> SPI alias, the fifo_lvl_mask and the FIFO size.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so we do actually have SoCs with multiple instances of the IP with
>>>> different FIFO depths (and who knows what else other differences)?
>>>
>>> I think that's why we can see .fifo_lvl_mask[] with different values
>>> for different IP instances. For example, ExynosAutoV9 has this (in
>>> upstream driver, yes):
>>>
>>> .fifo_lvl_mask = { 0x1ff, 0x1ff, 0x7f, 0x7f, 0x7f, 0x7f, 0x1ff,
>>> 0x7f, 0x7f, 0x7f, 0x7f, 0x7f},
>>>
>>
>> That sounds like the same bug as in the serial port driver,
>> by assuming that the alias values in the devicetree have
>> a particular meaning in identifying instances. This immediately
>> breaks when there is a dtb file that does not use the same
>> alias values, e.g. because it only needs some of the SPI
>> ports.
>>
>
> Exactly. I guess that's exactly what Tudor mentioned in his commit
> message, and he's trying to fix that very problem by relying on
> corresponding dts property (in his patch series) rather than on
> .fifo_lvl_mask.
>
Yes, all from above are correct. I'll split the FIFO size patches into a
smaller series to be easier to review.
Cheers,
ta
