Re: [PATCH 1/3] spi: spi-mem: add automatic poll status functions

[Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Boris, Pratyush

On 5/3/21 11:52 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2021 14:59:37 +0530
> Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/05/21 11:11AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 May 2021 14:17:44 +0530
>>> Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 30/04/21 06:51PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:39:32 +0200
>>>>> <patrice.chotard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>     
>>>>>> From: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With STM32 QSPI, it is possible to poll the status register of the device.
>>>>>> This could be done to offload the CPU during an operation (erase or
>>>>>> program a SPI NAND for example).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> spi_mem_poll_status API has been added to handle this feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/spi/spi-mem.c       | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>  include/linux/spi/spi-mem.h |  8 ++++++++
>>>>>>  2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
>>>>>> index 1513553e4080..43dce4b0efa4 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
>>>>>> @@ -743,6 +743,40 @@ static inline struct spi_mem_driver *to_spi_mem_drv(struct device_driver *drv)
>>>>>>  	return container_of(drv, struct spi_mem_driver, spidrv.driver);
>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * spi_mem_poll_status() - Poll memory device status
>>>>>> + * @mem: SPI memory device
>>>>>> + * @op: the memory operation to execute
>>>>>> + * @mask: status bitmask to ckeck
>>>>>> + * @match: status expected value
>>>>>> + * @timeout: timeout
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * This function send a polling status request to the controller driver
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Return: 0 in case of success, -ETIMEDOUT in case of error,
>>>>>> + *         -EOPNOTSUPP if not supported.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +int spi_mem_poll_status(struct spi_mem *mem,
>>>>>> +			const struct spi_mem_op *op,
>>>>>> +			u8 mask, u8 match, u16 timeout)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	struct spi_controller *ctlr = mem->spi->controller;
>>>>>> +	int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->poll_status) {
>>>>>> +		ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);    
>>>>>
>>>>> You should probably check that op is a single byte read before
>>>>> accepting the command.    
>>>>
>>>> Please do not discriminate against 8D-8D-8D flashes ;-).  
>>>
>>> Then mask and match should probably be u16 :P. And the check as it is
>>> seems a bit lax to me. Drivers will of course be able to reject the op
>>> when there's more than one byte (or 16bit word in case of 8D) to read,
>>> but it feels like the core could automate that a bit.  
>>
>> The two 8D flashes that are currently supported in SPI NOR both have a 
>> 1-byte status register. But to read it, the read op should be 2-byte 
>> long to avoid partial cycles at the end. The second byte is simply 
>> discarded.
>>
>> 2-byte wide registers might show up in the future, but for now at least 
>> we don't have to worry about them.
> 
> Well, I guess it doesn't hurt to take it into account now. I mean,
> what's happening on the bus in that case is a 2byte transfer, with the
> second byte being ignored, which you can describe with a 16bit mask
> of 0xMM00 (assuming big endian transfers here, as done for other ops).

OK, i will take the 2 byte case into account.

I will grab all remarks done and come back with an updated proposal in a few days.

Thanks
Patrice

> 
>>
>>>   
>>>>   
>>>>>     
>>>>>> +		if (ret)
>>>>>> +			return ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		ret = ctlr->mem_ops->poll_status(mem, op, mask, match, timeout);    
>>>>>
>>>>> You also need some sort of ->poll_status_is_supported() to validate
>>>>> that the controller supports the status polling for this specific op (I    
>>>>
>>>> I don't think a separate function is needed for checking if the poll 
>>>> status op is supported. Return value of -EOPNOTSUPP should be able to 
>>>> signal that. This can also be used to check if Octal DDR capable 
>>>> controllers are able to poll using 2-byte reads.  
>>>
>>> Yeah, I had something more complex in mind to avoid doing this 'try
>>> native mode and fall back on sw-based more if not supported' dance
>>> every time a status poll is requested (something similar to what we do
>>> for dirmaps, with a status poll desc), but I guess that's a bit
>>> premature (and probably uneeded).  
>>
>> I think Mark also suggested something similar. Make the CPU/non-CPU case 
>> transparent to the caller. I agree with with this direction. Makes the 
>> caller simpler.
> 
> It's kind of orthogonal to what I was suggesting, but yes, that's
> definitely a good idea. We certainly don't want the spi-nor layer to
> open code the same logic if the spi-mem layer can do it for us.
> 
>>
>> I also mentioned in a reply to this patch that supports_op() should be 
>> called before the op is executed. That should take care of "base" 
>> support for the op. The poll-specific checks can go in the poll_status() 
>> function itself. If either of those say the op is not supported, it 
>> should fall back to CPU based polling. That's the design that makes the 
>> most sense to me.
> 
> What I had in mind was more:
> 
> 1/ create a poll desc with spi_mem_create_poll_status_desc(). The
>    "operation supported" check is done here. The controller can store
>    all its HW-specific state in there. If the operation is not natively
>    supported, a SW-based poll descriptor (similar to the SW-based
>    dirmap) is created
> 2/ poll the status with spi_mem_poll_status(). This function is passed
>    a poll descriptor which helps select the path that should be taken
>    without having to check every time whether the hardware supports a
>    specific status polling op. I can also imagine some preparation
>    being done during the desc creation if that makes sense (preparing
>    reg values to be written when a status poll request is issued for
>    instance)
> 
> Anyway, as I said, this sort of optimization might be a bit premature.
>