Re: [PATCH v11 07/10] mtd: spi-nor: Add stacked memories support in spi-nor

[Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/8/23 17:05, Mahapatra, Amit Kumar wrote:
> Hello Tudor,

Hi!

> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 8:00 PM
>> To: Mahapatra, Amit Kumar <amit.kumar-mahapatra@xxxxxxx>;
>> broonie@xxxxxxxxxx; pratyush@xxxxxxxxxx; miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>> richard@xxxxxx; vigneshr@xxxxxx; sbinding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> lee@xxxxxxxxxx; james.schulman@xxxxxxxxxx; david.rhodes@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> rf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; perex@xxxxxxxx; tiwai@xxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-spi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> michael@xxxxxxxx; linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>> claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx; Simek, Michal <michal.simek@xxxxxxx>; linux-
>> arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> patches@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-sound@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; git (AMD-
>> Xilinx) <git@xxxxxxx>; amitrkcian2002@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 07/10] mtd: spi-nor: Add stacked memories support
>> in spi-nor
>>
>> Hi, Amit,
>>
>> On 11/25/23 09:21, Amit Kumar Mahapatra wrote:
>>> Each flash that is connected in stacked mode should have a separate
>>> parameter structure. So, the flash parameter member(*params) of the
>>> spi_nor structure is changed to an array (*params[2]). The array is
>>> used to store the parameters of each flash connected in stacked
>> configuration.
>>>
>>> The current implementation assumes that a maximum of two flashes are
>>> connected in stacked mode and both the flashes are of same make but
>>> can differ in sizes. So, except the sizes all other flash parameters
>>> of both the flashes are identical.
>>
>> Do you plan to add support for different flashes in stacked mode? If not,
> 
> No, according to the current implementation, in stacked mode, both flashes 
> must be of the same make.
> 
>> wouldn't it be simpler to have just an array of flash sizes instead of
>> duplicating the entire params struct?
> 
> Yes, that is accurate. In alignment with our current stacked support use case we 
> can have an array of flash sizes instead.
> The primary purpose of having an array of params struct was to facilitate 
> potential future extensions, allowing the addition of stacked support for 
> different flashes
> 

right. Don't do this change yet, let's decide on the overall
architecture first.

>>
>>>
>>> SPI-NOR is not aware of the chip_select values, for any incoming
>>> request SPI-NOR will decide the flash index with the help of
>>> individual flash size and the configuration type (single/stacked).
>>> SPI-NOR will pass on the flash index information to the SPI core & SPI
>>> driver by setting the appropriate bit in
>>> nor->spimem->spi->cs_index_mask. For example, if nth bit of
>>> nor->spimem->spi->cs_index_mask is set then the driver would
>>> assert/de-assert spi->chip_slect[n].
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Amit Kumar Mahapatra <amit.kumar-mahapatra@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c  | 272 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h  |   4 +
>>>  include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h |  15 +-
>>>  3 files changed, 240 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>>> index 93ae69b7ff83..e990be7c7eb6 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>>
>> cut
>>
>>> @@ -2905,7 +3007,10 @@ static void spi_nor_init_fixup_flags(struct
>>> spi_nor *nor)  static int spi_nor_late_init_params(struct spi_nor
>>> *nor)  {
>>>  	struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params = spi_nor_get_params(nor,
>> 0);
>>> -	int ret;
>>> +	struct device_node *np = spi_nor_get_flash_node(nor);
>>> +	u64 flash_size[SNOR_FLASH_CNT_MAX];
>>> +	u32 idx = 0;
>>> +	int rc, ret;
>>>
>>>  	if (nor->manufacturer && nor->manufacturer->fixups &&
>>>  	    nor->manufacturer->fixups->late_init) { @@ -2937,6 +3042,44 @@
>>> static int spi_nor_late_init_params(struct spi_nor *nor)
>>>  	if (params->n_banks > 1)
>>>  		params->bank_size = div64_u64(params->size, params-
>>> n_banks);
>>>
>>> +	nor->num_flash = 0;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * The flashes that are connected in stacked mode should be of same
>> make.
>>> +	 * Except the flash size all other properties are identical for all the
>>> +	 * flashes connected in stacked mode.
>>> +	 * The flashes that are connected in parallel mode should be identical.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	while (idx < SNOR_FLASH_CNT_MAX) {
>>> +		rc = of_property_read_u64_index(np, "stacked-memories",
>> idx,
>>> +&flash_size[idx]);
>>
>> This is a little late in my opinion, as we don't have any sanity check on the
>> flashes that are stacked on top of the first. We shall at least read and compare
>> the ID for all.
> 
> Alright, I will incorporate a sanity check for reading and comparing the 
> ID of the stacked flash. Subsequently, I believe this stacked logic 
> should be relocated to spi_nor_get_flash_info() where we identify the 
> first flash. Please share your thoughts on this. Additionally, do you 

I'm wondering whether we can add a layer on top of the flash type to
handle the stacked/parallel modes. This way everything will become flash
type independent. Would it be possible to stack 2 SPI NANDs? How about a
SPI NOR and a SPI NAND?

Is the datasheet of the controller public?

> anticipate that SPI-NOR should throw an error if the second or any 
> subsequent flash within the stacked connection is different? Or would you 
> prefer it to print a warning and operate in single mode (i.e., only the 
> first flash)?

Both options are fine, but I haven't yet decided on the overall
architecture.

Cheers,
ta