On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 18:47:08 +0300 Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 18:26, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 18:26:23 +0300 > > Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi Boris, > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your comment. > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 18:32, Boris Brezillon < > > boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:14:48 +0300 > > > > Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > +static const struct spi_controller_mem_ops npcm_fiu_mem_ops = { > > > > > + .exec_op = npcm_fiu_exec_op, > > > > > > > > No npcm_supports_op()? That's suspicious, especially after looking at > > > > the npcm_fiu_exec_op() (and the functions called from there) where the > > > > requested ->buswidth seems to be completely ignored... > > > > > > > > Sorry but I do not fully understand it, do you mean a support for the > > > buswidth? > > > If yes it been done in the UMA functions as follow: > > > > > > uma_cfg |= ilog2(op->cmd.buswidth); > > > uma_cfg |= ilog2(op->addr.buswidth) << > > > NPCM_FIU_UMA_CFG_ADBPCK_SHIFT; > > > uma_cfg |= ilog2(op->data.buswidth) << > > > NPCM_FIU_UMA_CFG_WDBPCK_SHIFT; > > > uma_cfg |= op->addr.nbytes << > > NPCM_FIU_UMA_CFG_ADDSIZ_SHIFT; > > > regmap_write(fiu->regmap, NPCM_FIU_UMA_ADDR, > > op->addr.val); > > > > > > > Hm, the default supports_op() implementation might be just fine for > > your use case. But there's one thing you still need to check: the > > number of addr cycles (or address size as you call it in this driver). > > Looks like your IP is limited to 4 address cycles, if I'm right, you > > should reject any operation that have op->addr.nbytes > 4. I also > > > Indeed our IP limited to 4 address cycle (bytes) do we have NOR Flash with > more than 32bit address? spi-mem is not only about spi-nor, it can be used for any kind of memory (NOR, NAND, SRAM, ...) or even to communicate with an FGPA, so yes, you have to take care of that. > I will add this limitation thanks! > > > wonder if there's a limitation on the data size you can have on a > > single transfer. If there's one you should implement ->adjust_op() too. > > > there is a limitation in a single transfer but I handle it in the > npcm_fiu_manualwrite > function. > Do you suggest to use ->adjust_op() instead? Yes, should be exposed through ->adjust_op() => the caller needs to know when a new operation (one containing an opcode+address) is issued, because sometimes such splits are not supported by the memory.