Re: [LINUX PATCH 2/3] spi: spi-mem: call spi_mem_default_supports_op() first

[Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx>]

On 29/03/19 2:23 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:50:26 +0530
> Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Boris,
>>
>> On 29/03/19 1:25 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:46:24 +0530
>>> Naga Sureshkumar Relli <naga.sureshkumar.relli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> Call spi_mem_default_supports_op() first, before calling controller
>>>> specific ctlr->supports_op().
>>>> With this, controller drivers can drop checking the buswidths again.  
>>>
>>> No, this was done on purpose, in case the controller does not want the
>>> default check to be applied (say it does not need bus-width props to
>>> be defined and has another way to check if a device can be accessed in
>>> dual, quad or octal mode).  
>>
>> Sorry, I don't understand here.
>> Based on capabilities declared in spi_device->mode, m25p80 driver will
>> claim appropriate  SNOR_HWCAPS_*.  SPI NOR layer chooses opcodes based
>> on that for which m25p80 layer populates buswidths.
> 
> Well, that test in m25p80 should go away and be replaced by a proper
> spi_mem_supports_op() iteration on all modes reported as supported by
> the *chip* (I think that's what I did in my series merging m25p80 code
> into the spi-nor core). But that's not really related to the problem
> we're discussing here.
> 

I see that now.

>>
>> So, I don't really expect any mismatch in spi_mem_default_supports_op()
>> in the case you mentioned. Or did I miss something? Maybe something SPI
>> NAND specific?
> 
> Nothing NAND specific, just something controller specific and how we
> want to deal with buswidth detection. Most memory devices expose their
> caps in some way (be it ID-based detection or using some kind of
> caps/parameters table), so they know what they're capable of. SPI
> controllers know what they're capable of, of course. The only part that
> remains unknown for buswidth negotiation is how things are wired on the
> board. I keep thinking that defining buswidth in the DT (using
> spi-{tx,rx}-bus-width) should only be done if there are board-related
> limiting factors (some IO pins not routed).
> If you look at the code, SPI_{TX,RX}_{DUAL,QUAD,OCTAL} flags are only
> set if the spi-{tx,rx}-bus-width props are defined.
> 
> The idea behind making spi_mem_default_supports_op() optional is to let
> new drivers implement a new scheme where missing
> spi-{tx,rx}-bus-width does not necessarily mean "use regular SPI mode".
> 

Ok, thanks for explanation.


-- 
Regards
Vignesh