On 10 January 2018 at 01:29, Trent Piepho <tpiepho@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 18:40 +0530, jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> This patch adds support for controller found on synquacer platforms. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> +static int synquacer_spi_config(struct spi_master *master, >> + struct spi_device *spi, >> + struct spi_transfer *xfer) >> +{ >> + struct synquacer_spi *sspi = spi_master_get_devdata(master); >> + unsigned int speed, mode, bpw, cs, bus_width; >> + unsigned long rate, transf_mode; >> + u32 val, div; >> + >> + /* Full Duplex only on 1bit wide bus */ >> + if (xfer->rx_buf && xfer->tx_buf && >> + (xfer->rx_nbits != 1 || xfer->tx_nbits != 1)) { >> + dev_err(sspi->dev, "RX and TX bus widths must match!\n"); > > This looks like the wrong error message is being printed. It does not > match the comment nor the code. > Well, TX and TX bus widths should both be 1 for Full-Duplex mode. I have anyway tried to made it clearer. >> + speed = xfer->speed_hz ? : spi->max_speed_hz; >> + bpw = xfer->bits_per_word ? : spi->bits_per_word; > > You shouldn't need to do this checking. __spi_validate() should have > already set these fields in xfer to their defaults if they weren't set, > checked xfer speed is less than controller max speed, checked bus width > is supported, etc. > Cool. Thanks >> + /* return if nothing to change */ >> + if (speed == sspi->speed && >> + bus_width == sspi->bus_width && bpw == sspi->bpw && >> + mode == sspi->mode && cs == sspi->cs && >> + transf_mode == sspi->old_transf_mode) { >> + return 0; >> + } > > Good optimization to not reprogram on every xfer, since usually speed, > bits, etc. stays the same for a series of xfers. However, often SPI > clients generate a number write, read pairs. In this case transf_mode > will alternate and the optimization will fail to work, even through it > is very likely that nothing (especially bus speed, which can be slow to > change) else changed. > > Consider allowing changing between read and write without unnecessarily > reprogramming everything else. > Tracking transf_mode is actually redundant. I have removed it. >> + >> + if (xfer->tx_buf) >> + sspi->old_transf_mode = TXBIT; >> + else >> + sspi->old_transf_mode = RXBIT; > Why not just: > > sspi->old_transf_mode = transf_mode; > > Also, why is this "old_" when all the other ones, sspi->speed, etc., > don't have "old_" in front. Seems inconsistent unless there is > something special about transf_mode I have missed. > >> >> + >> + if (xfer->tx_buf && xfer->rx_buf) >> + val |= (DATA_TXRX << DATA_SHIFT); >> + else if (xfer->rx_buf) >> + val |= (DATA_RX << DATA_SHIFT); >> + else >> + val |= (DATA_TX << DATA_SHIFT); > > Looks like one needs to set three different modes for bi, rx, and tx. > But your transf_mode variable only has two settings, rx and tx. It > won't detect change between tx and bi. > >> >> + >> + val = readl_relaxed(sspi->regs + FIFOCFG); >> + val |= RX_FLUSH; >> + val |= TX_FLUSH; >> + writel_relaxed(val, sspi->regs + FIFOCFG); > > If this causes the master to pulse the chipselect it will mess up > messages that have more than one xfer. > No, that just resets the fifos. >> + >> + /* See if we can transfer 4-bytes as 1 word even if not asked */ >> + bpw = xfer->bits_per_word ? : spi->bits_per_word; > > Don't neeed this as xfer->bits_per_word is already normalized. > OK >> + if (bpw == 8 && !(xfer->len % 4) && !(spi->mode & SPI_LSB_FIRST)) { >> + bpw = xfer->bits_per_word; >> + xfer->bits_per_word = 32; >> + } else { >> + bpw = xfer->bits_per_word; >> + } > > What's the point of the bpw = xfer->bits_per_word above? It would > already be set to that value. > Cleaned. >> + >> + ret = synquacer_spi_config(master, spi, xfer); >> + if (ret) { >> + xfer->bits_per_word = bpw; > > Why not restore xfer->bits_per_word immediately after call to > synquacer_spi_config, before if statement. It's not used again. Then > you don't have to restore it also at the end of the function. > Done. >> >> + >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sspi->lock, flags); > > What's this lock for? I see no other use than here. > Remnant of old driver. Dropped. >> + master->min_speed_hz = master->max_speed_hz / 254; > > The configure function rejects divisors larger than 127. Seems like > these should match. > Fixed. > I notice your transfer function does not use interrupts. It will spin > in a tight loop polling DMSTATUS waiting for data to arrive. Not very > friendly for a multitasking operating system. It would be much better > if there was a way wait for in an interrupt at the start of your while > loop and have the controller trigger one when the tx and/or rx fifo has > some amount of data in it (like half full). > > You'll likely also find that in an interruptable kernel that your > transfer function will eventually stop running and another process will > run. Multitasking. When this happens, it might be many milliseconds > before it is scheduled to run again. Hope that fifo is large... > > Usually when a device has a fifo that must be emptied before it > overflows, it is either emptied from an interrupt handler or the > interrupt handler will queue a work function or tasklet that will empty > it. Doing it from user context has a maximum latency that is too high. > I am aware of the benefits of interrupts, unfortunately the h/w doesn't seem to support. Thank you. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html