[U-Boot-Users] SPI support in U-boot

[Vladimir Gurevich <vag@paulidav.org>]

Hello Wolfgang,

Wolfgang Denk wrote:

>They are not "outdated". It's just  a  different  (and  incompatible)
>implementation.  If you can come up with a patch tp cleanup please do
>so.
>  
>
I decided to do that (and it was pretty easy to do), but now I have even 
more questions...

The major issue is the way chip selects are controlled. Currently, 
do_spi() function that implements "sspi" command calls spi_xfer() this way:

    spi_xfer(spi_chipsel[device], bitlen, dout, din)

where spi_chipsel is a global array of pointers to functions that are 
supposed to assert/de-assert chip selects for the specified target(s).

I looked at the code for the boards that use this mechanism, and I can 
see the array statically initialized, like (in board/sacsng/sacsng.c):

    /*
     * The SPI command uses this table of functions for controlling the SPI
     * chip selects: it calls the appropriate function to control the SPI
     * chip selects.
     */
    spi_chipsel_type spi_chipsel[] = {
        spi_adc_chipsel,
        spi_dac_chipsel
    };
    int spi_chipsel_cnt = sizeof(spi_chipsel) / sizeof(spi_chipsel[0]);

My question is: where these addresses are relocated? My understanding is 
that relocation for this type of data should be done manually, but 
nowhere in the code can I see it. Not for a single board. That means 
that if people got lucky, they execute the copy of the code from the 
FLASH, not the relocated one.

Is that OK? I also noticed the same mechanism being used in the 
FPGA-related code.

And another question. The current implementation(s) of the "eeprom" 
command assume that there is only 1 SPI device and do not bothr 
themselves with the chip selects at all. That means, that if you try to 
execute "eeprom" command after you executed "sspi" (that will de-assert 
the chip-select at the end or can choose a different one), the results 
will be unpredictable. I have no problem modifying "eeprom" command for 
my board, but this will force other people to do modifications as well, 
so I am not sure what should we do.

Thanks,
Vladimir