Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/8] spi: dt-bindings: spi-peripheral-props: add spi-offloads property

[David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/4/24 2:33 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 02:24:17PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
>> On 5/29/24 3:07 AM, Nuno Sá wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2024-05-26 at 18:35 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> It might be easy to do it this way right now, but be problematic for a
>>>> future device or if someone wants to chuck away the ADI provided RTL and
>>>> do their own thing for this device. Really it just makes me wonder if
>>>> what's needed to describe more complex data pipelines uses an of_graph,
>>>> just like how video pipelines are handled, rather than the implementation
>>>> of io-backends that don't really seem to model the flow of data.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, backends is more for devices/soft-cores that extend the functionality of the
>>> device they are connected too. Like having DACs/ADCs hdl cores for connecting to high
>>> speed controllers. Note that in some cases they also manipulate or even create data
>>> but since they fit in IIO, having things like the DMA property in the hdl binding was
>>> fairly straight.
>>>
>>> Maybe having an offload dedicated API (through spi) to get/share a DMA handle would
>>> be acceptable. Then we could add support to "import" it in the IIO core. Then it
>>> would be up to the controller to accept or not to share the handle (in some cases the
>>> controller could really want to have the control of the DMA transfers).
>>
>> I could see this working for some SPI controllers, but for the AXI SPI Engine
>> + DMA currently, the DMA has a fixed word size, so can't be used as a generic
>> DMA with arbitrary SPI xfers. For example, if the HDL is compiled with a 32-bit
>> word size, then even if we are reading 16-bit sample data, the DMA is going to
>> put it in a 32-bit slot. So one could argue that this is still doing some data
>> manipulation similar to the CRC checker example.
>>
>>>
>>> Not familiar enough with of_graph so can't argue about it but likely is something
>>> worth looking at.
>>
>> I did try implementing something using graph bindings when I first started
>> working on this, but it didn't seem to really give us any extra useful
>> information. It was just describing connections (endpoints) that I thought
>> we could just implicitly assume. After this discussion though, maybe worth
>> a second look. I'll have to think about it more.
> 
> Could you elaborate on why you think you can assume the connections? What
> happens when you have multiple stages of data processing and/or multiple
> ADCs in your system? As I've previously said, I work on FPGA stuff, and
> everyone here seems to fawn over having <insert custom DSP IP here> in
> their data pipelines. I can't imagine it being any different for ADC data,
> and an io-backend property that doesn't describe how the data flows is
> gonna become lacklustre I think.

I was more ignorant back then. :-)

That is is why I said "thought" instead of "think". I am more enlightened now.