On Sat 12 Sep 20:11 CDT 2020, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 3:53 PM Bjorn Andersson
> <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat 12 Sep 16:07 CDT 2020, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > In commit 902481a78ee4 ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO") I
> > > explained that the maximum size we could program the FIFO was
> > > "mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3" but that I chose "mas->tx_fifo_depth()"
> > > because I was worried about decreased bandwidth.
> > >
> > > Since that time:
> > > * All the interconnect patches have landed, making things run at the
> > > proper speed.
> > > * I've done more measurements.
> > >
> > > This lets me confirm that there's really no downside of using the FIFO
> > > more. Specifically I did "flashrom -p ec -r /tmp/foo.bin" on a
> > > Chromebook and averaged over several runs.
> >
> > Wouldn't there be a downside in the form of setting the watermark that
> > close to the full FIFO we have less room for being late handling the
> > interrupt? Or is there some mechanism involved that will prevent
> > the FIFO from being overrun?
>
> Yeah, I had that worry too, but, as described in 902481a78ee4 ("spi:
> spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO"), it doesn't seem to be a
> problem. From that commit: "We are the SPI master, so it makes sense
> that there would be no problems with overruns, the master should just
> stop clocking."
>
Actually read the message of the linked commit now. I share your view
that this indicates that the controller does something wrt the clocking
to handle this case.
Change itself looks good, so:
Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Bjorn
