On 09/23/2013 03:01 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> On 9/23/2013 3:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 09/23/2013 01:48 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2013 2:51 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 09/18/2013 12:17 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>>>> The tegra114 driver wasn't currently handling the cs_change functionality.
>>>>> It is meant to invert normal behavior, and we were only using it to possibly
>>>>> delay at the end of a transfer.
>> ...
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c b/drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c
>> ...
>>>>> @@ -717,7 +718,12 @@ static int tegra_spi_start_transfer_one(struct spi_device *spi,
>>>>> else if (req_mode == SPI_MODE_3)
>>>>> command1 |= SPI_CONTROL_MODE_3;
>>>>>
>>>>> - tegra_spi_writel(tspi, command1, SPI_COMMAND1);
>>>>> + if (tspi->cs_control) {
>>>>> + if (tspi->cs_control != spi)
>>>>> + tegra_spi_writel(tspi, command1, SPI_COMMAND1);
>>>>
>>>> Do you really need a separate write call there? The value of command1
>>>> isn't fully set up there (the CS bits are all set up immediately after),
>>>> so won't that glitch the CS lines in some cases?
>>>
>>> On our hardware (as far as I've seen), the CS line is normally low. We
>>
>> I assume you meant "normally *active* low", not "normally low"?
>
> I mean that when I look at CS, before a transaction starts, the line is
> low. Then we do a write like this (default SPI_COMMAND1) you see CS rise
> and fall very soon after. This is purely how we generate the edge
> triggers (as far as I can tell on all Tegra hw, though Laxman can
> correct me if I am wrong).
That sounds broken. Normally, shouldn't CS assert before a transaction,
stay asserted during a transaction, then deassert after the transaction?
It shouldn't rise and fall very quickly in between parts of the transaction.
>>> need to generate a falling-edge to trigger the beginning of a SPI
>>> transaction. Doing this write with the default value of SPI_COMMAND1
>>> causes a brief rise and fall of CS, giving us our falling-edge.
>>
>> That sounds like exactly the glitch I was talking about.
>>
>> Assuming CS isn't held constantly asserted (low), isn't CS de-asserted
>> (rises) at the end of transaction n-1, and re-asserted (falls) at the
>> start of transaction n? If so, I'm not sure why the setup for
>> transaction n needs to both de-assert and then re-assert it? It seems
>> like cs_control should be handled at the end of a transaction, not at
>> the start of the next one.
>
> cs_change has to maintain state over spi_message boundries, not just
> between spi_transfers within a spi_message.
>
> In this specific case, this is a safe guard.
>
>>>>> + if (tspi->cs_control) {
> This sees that the previous transfer stored its spi_device pointer,
> meaning it had cs_change set on the last part of the last spi_message
> (I.E. CS hasn't been deasserted, so the SPI transaction is still on-going).
>
>>>>> + if (tspi->cs_control != spi)
> This however finds that the device trying to send a SPI message isn't
> the same one that was in the middle of its transaction. This is a
> collision between 2 clients on 1 bus. This simply ends the previous
> transaction (the ongoing one) in favor of starting a new transaction.
>
> Otherwise, this logic allows us to skip the spi of COMMAND1 which would
> normally be used to create the falling edge to start a new transaction,
> leaving the previous one open for more transfers.
This sounds like something the SPI core should be managing. If a driver
is using the SPI bus to communicate with a device in a way that needs CS
left active while outside a transaction, it shouldn't be possible for
another driver to come along and communicate with another device before
the first transaction is all complete. The bus should be locked.
Allowing anything else could corrupt the protocol that required specific
CS states outside the transaction.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
