One last item, sorry!
On 30/05/2022 15:24, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On 30/05/2022 13:07, Ivan Bornyakov wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:22:26AM +0000, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> On 26/05/2022 19:13, Ivan Bornyakov wrote:
>>>> +static int mpf_read_status(struct spi_device *spi)
>>>> +{
>>>> + u8 status = 0, status_command = MPF_SPI_READ_STATUS;
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Two identical SPI transfers are used for status reading.
>>>> + * The reason is that the first one can be inadequate.
>>>> + * We ignore it completely and use the second one.
>>>> + */
>>>> + struct spi_transfer xfers[] = {
>>>> + [0 ... 1] = {
>>>> + .tx_buf = &status_command,
>>>> + .rx_buf = &status,
>>>> + .len = 1,
>>>> + .cs_change = 1,
Should cs_change be set for both messages or just the first?
From reading the documentation, it looks like we only want it
for the first one.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/spi/spi.h#L895
Thanks,
Conor.
>>>> + }
>>>> + };
>>>
>>> Hmm, I don't think that this is correct, or at least it is not
>>> correct from the polarfire /soc/ perspective. I was told that
>>> there was nothing different other than the envm between the
>>> programming for both devices - but this is another situation
>>> where I start to question that.
>>>
>>> When I run this code, ISC enable /never/ passes - failing due
>>> to timing out. I see something like this picture here:
>>> https://i.imgur.com/EKhd1S3.png
>>> You can see the 0x0B ISC enable coming through & then a status
>>> check after it.
>>>
>>> With the current code, the value of the "status" variable will
>>> be 0x0, given you are overwriting the first MISO value with the
>>> second. According to the hw guys, the spi hw status *should*
>>> only be returned on MISO in the first byte after SS goes low.
>>>
>>> If this is not the case for a non -soc part, which, as I said
>>> before, I don't have a board with the SPI programmer exposed
>>> for & I have been told is not the case then my comments can
>>> just be ignored entirely & I'll have some head scratching to
>>> do...
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Conor.
>>>
>>
>> If I understood correctly, SS doesn't alter between two status reading
>> transactions despite .cs_change = 1. May be adding some .cs_change_delay
>> to spi_transfer struct can help with that?
>
> D-oh - bug in the spi controller driver :)
> LGTM now, successfully programmed my PolarFire SoC with v12.
> I'd almost suggest adding a compatible for it too - but since
> the envm programming doesn't work I don't think that would be
> correct.
>
> Tested-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> With a small comment about why it's using spi_sync_transfer():
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>
>>>> + int ret = spi_sync_transfer(spi, xfers, 2);
>>>> +
>>>> + if ((status & MPF_STATUS_SPI_VIOLATION) ||
>>>> + (status & MPF_STATUS_SPI_ERROR))
>>>> + ret = -EIO;
>>>> +
>>>> + return ret ? : status;
>>>> +}
>>
>
