From: "Théo Lebrun" <theo.lebrun@bootlin.com>
To: "Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
"Vaishnav Achath" <vaishnav.a@ti.com>,
"Thomas Bogendoerfer" <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>, <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
"Vladimir Kondratiev" <vladimir.kondratiev@mobileye.com>,
"Gregory CLEMENT" <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
"Tawfik Bayouk" <tawfik.bayouk@mobileye.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] spi: cadence-qspi: add FIFO depth detection quirk
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 16:38:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D0ETH1AG1ONG.1M1FPSZM69H0Z@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <551bea0a-1c9e-4e04-87db-c643fdaee85e@sirena.org.uk>
Hello,
On Mon Apr 8, 2024 at 4:10 PM CEST, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 05:02:15PM +0200, Théo Lebrun wrote:
>
> > Use hardware ability to read the FIFO depth thanks to
> > CQSPI_REG_SRAMPARTITION that is partially read-only. Keep current
> > behavior identical for existing compatibles.
>
> The behaviour is not identical here - we now unconditionally probe the
> FIFO depth on all hardware, the difference with the quirk is that we
> will ignore any DT property specifying the depth.
You are correct of course. Wording is incorrect. I wanted to highlight
that FIFO depth does not change for existing HW and still relies as
before on devicetree value.
> > - if (of_property_read_u32(np, "cdns,fifo-depth", &cqspi->fifo_depth)) {
> > + if (!(ddata && ddata->quirks & CQSPI_DETECT_FIFO_DEPTH) &&
> > + of_property_read_u32(np, "cdns,fifo-depth", &cqspi->fifo_depth)) {
> > dev_err(dev, "couldn't determine fifo-depth\n");
>
> It's not obvious from just the code that we do handle having a FIFO
> depth property and detection in the detection code, at least a comment
> would be good.
I see. Will add comment or rework code to make more straight forward, or
both.
> > +static void cqspi_controller_detect_fifo_depth(struct cqspi_st *cqspi)
> > +{
> > + const struct cqspi_driver_platdata *ddata = cqspi->ddata;
> > + struct device *dev = &cqspi->pdev->dev;
> > + u32 reg, fifo_depth;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Bits N-1:0 are writable while bits 31:N are read as zero, with 2^N
> > + * the FIFO depth.
> > + */
> > + writel(U32_MAX, cqspi->iobase + CQSPI_REG_SRAMPARTITION);
> > + reg = readl(cqspi->iobase + CQSPI_REG_SRAMPARTITION);
> > + fifo_depth = reg + 1;
> > +
> > + if (ddata && ddata->quirks & CQSPI_DETECT_FIFO_DEPTH) {
> > + cqspi->fifo_depth = fifo_depth;
> > + dev_dbg(dev, "using FIFO depth of %u\n", fifo_depth);
> > + } else if (fifo_depth != cqspi->fifo_depth) {
> > + dev_warn(dev, "detected FIFO depth (%u) different from config (%u)\n",
> > + fifo_depth, cqspi->fifo_depth);
> > + }
>
> It's not obvious to me that we should ignore an explicitly specified
> property if the quirk is present
DT value isn't expected for compatibles with CQSPI_DETECT_FIFO_DEPTH
quirk, therefore we do not ignore a specified property. Bindings agree:
prop is false with EyeQ5 compatible.
> - if anything I'd more expect to see
> the new warning in that case, possibly with a higher severity if we're
> saying that the quirk means we're more confident that the data reported
> by the hardware is reliable. I think what I'd expect is that we always
> use an explicitly specified depth (hopefully the user was specifying it
> for a reason?).
The goal was a simpler devicetree on Mobileye platform. This is why we
add this behavior flag. You prefer the property to be always present?
This is a only a nice-to-have, you tell me what you prefer.
I wasn't sure all HW behaved in the same way wrt read-only bits in
SRAMPARTITION, and I do not have access to other platforms exploiting
this driver. This is why I kept behavior reserved for EyeQ5-integrated
IP block.
> Pulling all the above together can we just drop the quirk and always do
> the detection, or leave the quirk as just controlling the severity with
> which we log any difference between detected and explicitly configured
> depths?
If we do not simplify devicetree, then I'd vote for dropping this patch
entirely. Adding code for detecting such an edge-case doesn't sound
useful. Especially since this kind of error should only occur to people
adding new hardware support; those probably do not need a nice
user-facing error message. What do you think?
Regards,
--
Théo Lebrun, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-08 14:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-05 15:02 [PATCH v2 00/11] spi: cadence-qspi: add Mobileye EyeQ5 support Théo Lebrun
2024-04-05 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] spi: dt-bindings: cdns,qspi-nor: add mobileye,eyeq5-ospi compatible Théo Lebrun
2024-04-08 14:13 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-05 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 02/11] spi: dt-bindings: cdns,qspi-nor: sort compatibles alphabetically Théo Lebrun
2024-04-06 11:38 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-04-08 14:14 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-08 14:41 ` Théo Lebrun
2024-04-05 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] spi: cadence-qspi: allow building for MIPS Théo Lebrun
2024-04-05 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] spi: cadence-qspi: store device data pointer in private struct Théo Lebrun
2024-04-05 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] spi: cadence-qspi: add FIFO depth detection quirk Théo Lebrun
2024-04-08 14:10 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-08 14:38 ` Théo Lebrun [this message]
2024-04-08 14:45 ` Théo Lebrun
2024-04-08 14:51 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-09 10:07 ` Théo Lebrun
2024-04-09 15:51 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-05 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] spi: cadence-qspi: minimise register accesses on each op if !DTR Théo Lebrun
2024-04-05 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] spi: cadence-qspi: add no-IRQ mode to indirect reads Théo Lebrun
2024-04-05 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] spi: cadence-qspi: add early busywait to cqspi_wait_for_bit() Théo Lebrun
2024-04-08 14:16 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-08 14:42 ` Théo Lebrun
2024-04-08 16:40 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-09 10:09 ` Théo Lebrun
2024-04-05 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] spi: cadence-qspi: add mobileye,eyeq5-ospi compatible Théo Lebrun
2024-04-05 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] MIPS: mobileye: eyeq5: Add SPI-NOR controller node Théo Lebrun
2024-04-05 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] MIPS: mobileye: eyeq5: add octal flash node to eval board DTS Théo Lebrun
2024-04-05 15:30 ` [PATCH v2 00/11] spi: cadence-qspi: add Mobileye EyeQ5 support Théo Lebrun
2024-04-08 17:57 ` (subset) " Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=D0ETH1AG1ONG.1M1FPSZM69H0Z@bootlin.com \
--to=theo.lebrun@bootlin.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gregory.clement@bootlin.com \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=tawfik.bayouk@mobileye.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
--cc=vaishnav.a@ti.com \
--cc=vladimir.kondratiev@mobileye.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).