On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 09:06 +1300, Chris Packham wrote: > On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 12:44 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 12:35:24AM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > > > > > I'm working on a platform that has a slightly complicated scheme for > > > SPI chip-selects using gpios[1]. The spi controller driver in this case > > > supports the spi-mem operations which appear to bypass the generic > > > spi_set_cs(). > > > Would there be any harm in adding calls to spi_set_cs() to spi-mem.c? > > > Naively spi_mem_access_start() and spi_mem_access_end() seem like > > > convenient places to start. > > > > That's only going to work in cases where the controller translates > > things into a single SPI operation on the flash which I'm not sure is > > always going to be the case. We'd need a way to guarantee that the > > controller is going to do that in order to avoid data corruption issues. > > In my particular case (spi-bcm-qspi.c) bcm_qspi_bspi_exec_mem_op() does > seem to assert the native chip-select then do it's operation. As I > understand the wait_for_completion_timeout() will schedule so other > tasks may run but spi_mem_access_start() has taken an io_mutex so > anything that accesses that spi bus will block. If we do decide that spi-mem ops and cs_gpios are incompatible we could probably do something that disables the ops so that the spi code falls back to using spi_transfer.