Hi Matteo,
Thanks for your patch.
Hi Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
For this patch series, can you give some comments (maybe the question
from I need more discussion)? Thanks.
On 06/24/2014 07:26 PM, Matteo Fortini wrote:
As stated in section 29.19.35 of SAMA5D3 Series Datasheet,
MODE register has offset 0x10 and at offset 0x0C there is
a TIMINGS register.
Signed-off-by: Matteo Fortini <matteo.fortini@xxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91sam9_smc.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
arch/arm/mach-at91/sam9_smc.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91sam9_smc.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91sam9_smc.h
index d5cf5f7..e4f0f54 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91sam9_smc.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91sam9_smc.h
@@ -45,10 +45,24 @@ struct sam9_smc_config {
u8 tdf_cycles:4;
};
+struct sam9_smc_sama5d3_extra_config {
Nitpick: I am thinking another name, maybe: sama5d3_timing_config (?)
+ /* Timings register */
+ u8 tclr;
+ u8 tadl;
+ u8 tar;
+ u8 ocms;
+ u8 trr;
+ u8 twb;
+ u8 rbnsel;
+ u8 nfsel;
+};
+
extern void sam9_smc_configure(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config);
extern void sam9_smc_read(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config);
extern void sam9_smc_read_mode(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config);
extern void sam9_smc_write_mode(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config);
+
+extern void sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config, struct sam9_smc_sama5d3_extra_config *sama5d3_extra_config);
Ditto
#endif
#define AT91_SMC_SETUP 0x00 /* Setup Register for CS n */
@@ -77,7 +91,25 @@ extern void sam9_smc_write_mode(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config);
#define AT91_SMC_NRDCYCLE (0x1ff << 16) /* Total Read Cycle Length */
#define AT91_SMC_NRDCYCLE_(x) ((x) << 16)
-#define AT91_SMC_MODE 0x0c /* Mode Register for CS n */
+#define AT91_SMC_TIMINGS 0x0c /* Timings register for CS n */
+#define AT91_SMC_TCLR (0x0f << 0) /* CLE to REN Low Delay */
+#define AT91_SMC_TCLR_(x) ((x) << 0)
+#define AT91_SMC_TADL (0x0f << 4) /* ALE to Data Start */
+#define AT91_SMC_TADL_(x) ((x) << 4)
+#define AT91_SMC_TAR (0x0f << 8) /* ALE to REN Low Delay */
+#define AT91_SMC_TAR_(x) ((x) << 8)
+#define AT91_SMC_OCMS (0x1 << 12) /* Off Chip Memory Scrambling Enable */
+#define AT91_SMC_OCMS_(x) ((x) << 12)
+#define AT91_SMC_TRR (0x0f << 16) /* Ready to REN Low Delay */
+#define AT91_SMC_TRR_(x) ((x) << 16)
+#define AT91_SMC_TWB (0x0f << 24) /* WEN High to REN to Busy */
+#define AT91_SMC_TWB_(x) ((x) << 24)
+#define AT91_SMC_RBNSEL (0x07 << 28) /* Ready/Busy Line Selection */
+#define AT91_SMC_RBNSEL_(x) ((x) << 28)
+#define AT91_SMC_NFSEL (0x01 << 31) /* Nand Flash Selection */
+#define AT91_SMC_NFSEL_(x) ((x) << 31)
+
+#define AT91_SMC_MODE ((at91_soc_initdata.type == AT91_SOC_SAMA5D3) ? 0x10 : 0x0c) /* Mode Register for CS n */
Here make me thinking more, if new SoC added and MODE register's offset
is the same as sama5d3, then it will be:
(at91_soc_initdata.type == AT91_SOC_SAMA5D3) || (at91_soc_initdata.type
== AT91_SOC_NEW1) || (at91_soc_initdata.type == AT91_SOC_NEW2)
Will this be acceptable?
#define AT91_SMC_READMODE (1 << 0) /* Read Mode */
#define AT91_SMC_WRITEMODE (1 << 1) /* Write Mode */
#define AT91_SMC_EXNWMODE (3 << 4) /* NWAIT Mode */
@@ -101,4 +133,5 @@ extern void sam9_smc_write_mode(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config);
#define AT91_SMC_PS_16 (2 << 28)
#define AT91_SMC_PS_32 (3 << 28)
+
Nitpick: remove this unintentionally added extra blank line.
#endif
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/sam9_smc.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/sam9_smc.c
index c7bfdfd..a068d89 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/sam9_smc.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/sam9_smc.c
@@ -30,6 +30,20 @@ static void sam9_smc_cs_write_mode(void __iomem *base,
base + AT91_SMC_MODE);
}
+static void sam9_smc_cs_write_timings(void __iomem *base,
+ struct sam9_smc_sama5d3_extra_config *config)
+{
+ __raw_writel(AT91_SMC_TCLR_(config->tclr)
+ | AT91_SMC_TADL_(config->tadl)
+ | AT91_SMC_TAR_(config->tar)
+ | AT91_SMC_OCMS_(config->ocms)
+ | AT91_SMC_TRR_(config->trr)
+ | AT91_SMC_TWB_(config->twb)
+ | AT91_SMC_RBNSEL_(config->rbnsel)
+ | AT91_SMC_NFSEL_(config->nfsel),
+ base + AT91_SMC_TIMINGS);
+}
+
void sam9_smc_write_mode(int id, int cs,
struct sam9_smc_config *config)
{
@@ -120,6 +134,13 @@ void sam9_smc_read(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config)
sam9_smc_cs_read(AT91_SMC_CS(id, cs), config);
}
+void sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config, struct sam9_smc_sama5d3_extra_config *sama5d3_extra_config)
+{
+ sam9_smc_configure(id, cs, config);
+
+ sam9_smc_cs_write_timings(AT91_SMC_CS(id, cs), sama5d3_extra_config);
+}
+
static int at91sam9_smc_probe(struct device_d *dev)
{
int id = dev->id;
Otherwise, it seems good.
Thanks again.
Best Regards,
Bo Shen
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
