Sorry for multiple emails.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Viet Nga Dao <vndao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Please ignore previous 2 emails of mine ^^
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Brian Norris
> <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:53:59PM +0800, Viet Nga Dao wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Viet Nga Dao <vndao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Viet Nga Dao <vndao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Brian Norris
>>> >> <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:23:16AM -0800, vndao@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> >>>> From: Viet Nga Dao <vndao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>> >> That is why if rewrite the drivers to follow spi-nor structure, it
>>> >> will require extra decoding works for the only few used opcodes.
>>> >>
>>> >I think you'd only have some very trivial work here.
>>> >
>>> >There would be some small work to reintroduce a properly-replaceable ID
>>> >table, and callbacks like ->lock() and ->unlock(), but those should be
>>> >implemented in spi-nor.c sooner or later anyway.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I am trying to modify the code to follow your recommendation. However,
>>> for lock and unlock functions, i have to implement it in spi_nor.c ,
>>> am i right? If yes, currently we already have existing spi_nor_lock
>>> and spi_nor_unlock functions but they could not apply for my driver.
>>> Should i create a new functions named altera_epcq_lock and unlock and
>>> then map it to callback functions or i should the put those code
>>> sunder existing spi_nor_lock/unlock?
>>
>> We probably want a replaceable spi_nor callback that does the
>> flash-specific unlock. spi_nor_lock/unlock would then call the
>> nor->unlock() / nor->lock() functions for you, when present.
>> Some of the existing code should move into their own spi_nor_st_lock() /
>> spi_nor_st_unlock() functions.
>>
>
> This changes will be made by me or maintainers? If current this
> functions are not supported, i decide not to implement my lock, unlock
> function as well.
>
I made the changes at my side here. However, there are something i
want to confirm with you:
- in spi-nor.h, i add 2 functions. _lock and _unlock instead of lock
and unlock. It is because we already have struct mutex lock with the
same name.
int (*_lock)(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t offs, uint64_t len);
int (*_unlock)(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t offs, uint64_t len);
- in spi-nor.c, i change the current spi_nor_lock and spi_nor_unlock
to stmicro_spi_nor_lock and stmirco_spi_nor_unlock
- in spi-nor.c, i add 2 functions:
static int spi_nor_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
{
struct spi_nor *nor = mtd_to_spi_nor(mtd);
int ret = 0;
ret = spi_nor_lock_and_prep(nor, SPI_NOR_OPS_LOCK);
if (ret)
return ret;
/* Wait until finished previous command */
ret = wait_till_ready(nor);
if (ret)
goto err;
ret = nor->_lock(nor, ofs, len);
err:
spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep(nor, SPI_NOR_OPS_LOCK);
return ret;
}
static int spi_nor_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
{
struct spi_nor *nor = mtd_to_spi_nor(mtd);
int ret = 0;
ret = spi_nor_lock_and_prep(nor, SPI_NOR_OPS_LOCK);
if (ret)
return ret;
/* Wait until finished previous command */
ret = wait_till_ready(nor);
if (ret)
goto err;
ret = nor->_unlock(nor, ofs, len);
err:
spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep(nor, SPI_NOR_OPS_LOCK);
return ret;
}
- Then under spi_nor_scan function, i add these few lines:
/* nor protection support for STmicro chips */
if (JEDEC_MFR(info->jedec_id) == CFI_MFR_ST) {
mtd->_lock = stmicro_spi_nor_lock;
mtd->_unlock = stmicro_spi_nor_unlock;
} else {
mtd->_lock = spi_nor_lock;
mtd->_unlock = spi_nor_unlock;
}
What is your comment?
>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/altera_epcq.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/altera_epcq.txt
>>> >>>> new file mode 100644
>>> >>>> index 0000000..d14f50e
>>> >>>> --- /dev/null
>>> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/altera_epcq.txt
>>> >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
>>> >>>> +* MTD Altera EPCQ driver
>>> >>>> +
>>> >>>> +Required properties:
>>> >>>> +- compatible: Should be "altr,epcq-1.0"
>>> >>>> +- reg: Address and length of the register set for the device. It contains
>>> >>>> + the information of registers in the same order as described by reg-names
>>> >>>> +- reg-names: Should contain the reg names
>>> >>>> + "csr_base": Should contain the register configuration base address
>>> >>>> + "data_base": Should contain the data base address
>>> >>>> +- is-epcs: boolean type.
>>> >>>> + If present, the device contains EPCS flashes.
>>> >>>> + Otherwise, it contains EPCQ flashes.
>>> >>>> +- #address-cells: Must be <1>.
>>> >>>> +- #size-cells: Must be <0>.
>>> >>>> +- flash device tree subnode, there must be a node with the following fields:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> These subnodes definitely require a 'compatible' string. Perhaps they
>>> >>> should be used to differentiate EPCS vs. EPCQ. Does "is-epcs" really
>>> >>> need to be in the top-level controller node?
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> + - reg: Should contain the flash id
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Should, or must? (This question is relevant, because you seem to make it
>>> >>> optional in your code.) And what does the "flash ID" mean? It seems like
>>> >>> you're using as a chip-select or bank index.
>>> >>>
>>> Yes, this is used for chip select. It is required, not optional. This
>>> to ID for each flash in the device
>>
>> OK, so correct the language here and enforce this in your driver. Right
>> now, you don't fail gracefully if this is missing.
>>
>
> Sorry, you are right. This field is unnecessary for my driver.
> Instead, compatible is replaced. I will update it with 2nd version.
>
>>> >>>> + if (sector_start < num_sectors-(num_sectors / 4))
>>> >>>> + sr_bp = __ilog2_u32(num_sectors);
>>> >>>> + else if (sector_start < num_sectors-(num_sectors / 8))
>>> >>>> + sr_bp = __ilog2_u32(num_sectors) - 1;
>>> >>>> + else if (sector_start < num_sectors-(num_sectors / 16))
>>> >>>> + sr_bp = __ilog2_u32(num_sectors) - 2;
>>> >>>> + else if (sector_start < num_sectors-(num_sectors / 32))
>>> >>>> + sr_bp = __ilog2_u32(num_sectors) - 3;
>>> >>>> + else if (sector_start < num_sectors-(num_sectors / 64))
>>> >>>> + sr_bp = __ilog2_u32(num_sectors) - 4;
>>> >>>> + else if (sector_start < num_sectors-(num_sectors / 128))
>>> >>>> + sr_bp = __ilog2_u32(num_sectors) - 5;
>>> >>>> + else if (sector_start < num_sectors-(num_sectors / 256))
>>> >>>> + sr_bp = __ilog2_u32(num_sectors) - 6;
>>> >>>> + else if (sector_start < num_sectors-(num_sectors / 512))
>>> >>>> + sr_bp = __ilog2_u32(num_sectors) - 7;
>>> >>>> + else if (sector_start < num_sectors-(num_sectors / 1024))
>>> >>>> + sr_bp = __ilog2_u32(num_sectors) - 8;
>>> >>>> + else
>>> >>>> + sr_bp = 0; /* non area protected */
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Yikes, that's ugly! And I'm not sure it matches the EPCQ doc I found.
>>> >>> I'm pretty sure you can rewrite this if/else-if/else block in about 1
>>> >>> line though.
>>> >>>
>>> Yes, i understand that it looks ugly. But it is the best i can do
>>> since this function has to satisfy for all the supported devices
>>> (http://www.altera.com.my/literature/hb/cfg/cfg_cf52012.pdf, start
>>> from page 19)
>>
>> Did you even try? It was possible to simplify the other case, and I'm
>> pretty sure this case can be simplified too. How about this? I hacked
>> this together and it seems to match:
>>
>> if (sector_start <= num_sectors / 2)
>> sr_bp = __ilog2_u32(num_sectors);
>> else
>> sr_bp = fls(num_sectors - 1 - sector_start) + 1;
>>
>
> Umm. This does not seem right to me. Just look at sector_start <
> number_sector / 2. From the altera EPCQ datasheet
> (http://www.altera.com.my/literature/hb/cfg/cfg_cf52012.pdf), such as
> EPCQ16 (page 19,20). Sector start <number_sector/2 is the case where
> TB = 1 (table 17). In this table we have few options and sr_bp =
> __ilog2_u32(num_sectors) is only cover for the sector from 0 to 15 to
> be protected.
>
I think the code should be like this:
if (sector_start >= num_sectors / 2)
sr_bp = fls(num_sectors - 1 - sector_start) + 1;
else if ((sector_end < num_sectors / 2)
sr_bp = fls(sector_end) + 1;
else
sr_bp = 16; /* lock all areas */
>>> >>>> +
>>> >>>> + if (sr_bp < 0) {
>>> >>>
>>> >>> sr_bp is unsigned, so this is never true.
>>> >>>
>>> Ok. I will change to int type.
>>
>> Are there ever negative values?
>>
>>> >>>> +static int altera_epcq_probe_config_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,
>>> >>>> + struct device_node *np,
>>> >>>> + struct altera_epcq_plat_data *pdata)
>>> >>>> +{
>>> >>>> + struct device_node *pp = NULL;
>>> >>>> + struct resource *epcq_res;
>>> >>>> + int i = 0;
>>> >>>> + u32 id;
>> ...
>>> >>>> + pdata->np[i] = pp;
>>> >>>> +
>>> >>>> + /* Read bank id from DT */
>>> >>>> + if (of_get_property(pp, "reg", &id))
>>
>> I just realized; you're not using this correctly. of_get_property()
>> returns the *length* in the third parameter, so you're not actually
>> saving the bank ID here. You probably want of_property_read_u32()
>> instead.
>>
>
> I will remove this since it is unnecessary.
>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Is this property optional? Your DT binding doc doesn't make it clear,
>>> >>> but it seems like a property which would be wise to require (i.e., not
>>> >>> optional).
>>
>> ^^^ so there should be a failure case, where you return failure if the
>> property is missing.
>>
>>> >>>> + pdata->board_flash_info[i].bank = id;
>>> >>>> + i++;
>>> >>>> + }
>>> >>>> + pdata->num_flashes = i;
>>> >>>> + return 0;
>>> >>>> +}
>>
>> Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
