Re: [PATCH 01/24] spi: spi-mem: Extend spi-mem operations with a per-operation maximum frequency

[Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 25 2024, Miquel Raynal wrote:

> In the spi subsystem, the bus frequency is derived as follows:
> - the controller may expose a minimum and maximum operating frequency
> - the hardware description, through the spi peripheral properties,
>   advise what is the maximum acceptable frequency from a device/wiring
>   point of view.
> Transfers must be observed at a frequency which fits both (so in
> practice, the lowest maximum).
>
> Actually, this second point mixes two information and already takes the
> lowest frequency among:
> - what the spi device is capable of (what is written in the component
>   datasheet)
> - what the wiring allows (electromagnetic sensibility, crossovers,
>   terminations, antenna effect, etc).
>
> This logic works until spi devices are no longer capable of sustaining
> their highest frequency regardless of the operation. Spi memories are
> typically subject to such variation. Some devices are capable of
> spitting their internally stored data (essentially in read mode) at a
> very fast rate, typically up to 166MHz on Winbond SPI-NAND chips, using
> "fast" commands. However, some of the low-end operations, such as
> regular page read-from-cache commands, are more limited and can only be
> executed at 54MHz at most. This is currently a problem in the SPI-NAND
> subsystem. Another situation, even if not yet supported, will be with
> DTR commands, when the data is latched on both edges of the clock. The
> same chips as mentioned previously are in this case limited to
> 80MHz. Yet another example might be continuous reads, which, under
> certain circumstances, can also run at most at 104 or 120MHz.

It's been a while so I don't remember the specifics anymore, but IIRC
some NOR flashes had the same issue. Some commands could only run at a
lower frequency.

>
> As a matter of fact, the "one frequency per chip" policy is outdated and
> more fine grain configuration is needed: we need to allow per-operation
> frequency limitations. So far, all datasheets I encountered advertise a
> maximum default frequency, which need to be lowered for certain specific
> operations. So based on the current infrastructure, we can still expect
> firmware (device trees in general) to continued advertising the same
> maximum speed which is a mix between the PCB limitations and the chip
> maximum capability, and expect per-operation lower frequencies when this
> is relevant.
>
> Add a `struct spi_mem_op` member to carry this information. Not
> providing this field explicitly from upper layers means that there is no
> further constraint and the default spi device maximum speed will be
> carried instead. The SPI_MEM_OP() macro is also expanded with an
> optional frequency argument, because virtually all operations can be
> subject to such a limitation, and this will allow for a smooth and
> discrete transition.
>
> For controller drivers which do not implement the spi-mem interface, the
> per-transfer speed is also set acordingly to a lower (than the maximum
> default) speed, or 0, to comply with the current API.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
[...]
>  /**
>   * struct spi_mem_op - describes a SPI memory operation
>   * @cmd.nbytes: number of opcode bytes (only 1 or 2 are valid). The opcode is
> @@ -95,6 +98,9 @@ enum spi_mem_data_dir {
>   *		 operation does not involve transferring data
>   * @data.buf.in: input buffer (must be DMA-able)
>   * @data.buf.out: output buffer (must be DMA-able)
> + * @max_freq: frequency limitation wrt this operation. 0 means there is no
> + *	      specific constraint and the highest achievable frequency can be
> + *	      attempted).
>   */
>  struct spi_mem_op {
>  	struct {
> @@ -132,14 +138,17 @@ struct spi_mem_op {
>  			const void *out;
>  		} buf;
>  	} data;
> +
> +	unsigned int max_freq;

So we limit the maximum frequency to roughly 4.2 GHz. Seems reasonable,
considering the top end NOR flashes do up to 200-300 MHz.

Didn't look too closely at the code but the idea seems good to me.

Acked-by: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@xxxxxxxxxx>


-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav