All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Valentin Longchamp <valentin.longchamp@keymile.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 1/3] cmd_sf: add 'release' command
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:02:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56548A12.9040407@keymile.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPnjgZ2YtsFEd4DczEVz9JSUCvXHENCNfKfAiSSOA9JZEy9O5A@mail.gmail.com>

On 24/11/2015 02:49, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Valentine,
> 
> On 23 November 2015 at 02:19, Valentin Longchamp
> <valentin.longchamp@keymile.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On 20/11/2015 18:19, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 20 November 2015 at 03:13, Valentin Longchamp
>>> <valentin.longchamp@keymile.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19/11/2015 17:57, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>>>> On 13 November 2015 at 18:55, Valentin Longchamp
>>>>> <valentin.longchamp@keymile.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The release command is the pendant of the probe command. This command
>>>>>> allows to call spi_flash_free from the command line. This may be
>>>>>> necessary for some boards where sf probe does change the state of the
>>>>>> hardware (like with some pin multiplexing changes for instance).
>>>>>
>>>>> So you want to change the state of pin multiplexing on your board with
>>>>> connected slave devices example: spi nor flash is it? what exactly the
>>>>> need of releasing? why can't we use pin multiplexing changes like
>>>>> selecting or deselecting particular lines through driver or from board
>>>>> files itself.
>>>>
>>>> That's our use case yes. Let me explain you it again in detail. Some of the
>>>> signals used to access the NAND Flash and the SPI NOR are shared. At reset, they
>>>> are available for the SPI NOR, since u-boot is in there and the CPU then
>>>> accesses it.
>>>>
>>>> In an usual boot sequence, the SPI NOR is accessed first (copying u-boot to the
>>>> RAM, reading out the environment) and so the pins are configured in hardware at
>>>> boot time for accessing the SPI NOR. After that, they are configured to access
>>>> the NAND where the kernel and filesystem are stored to boot Linux thanks to
>>>> env_relocate_spec() calling spi_flash_free() on exit in conjunction with [1]
>>>>
>>>> Now in the case where the boot sequence is interrupted and some accesses are
>>>> done to the SPI NOR, the pins are changed again to SPI NOR to perform these
>>>> accesses. But we have to make sure that the pins are configured back to NAND by
>>>> calling spi_flash_free() after these accesses and that's why I introduced the
>>>> release() function.
>>>>
>>>> In our case, there are 2 types of such accesses:
>>>> - environment variables write: this is the first patch of the series. It simply
>>>> adds calls to spi_flash_free() at function exit no only in env_relocate_spec()
>>>> but also in saveenv() so that the behavior here is coherent for the whole env_sf
>>>> file (spi_flash_probe() at function start, spi_flash_free() at function exit).
>>>> - updating u-boot: this is solved for us with the last 2 patches of the series.
>>>> The first one just adds a sf release command that does the opposite/cleanup to
>>>> sf probe and the second patch just calls this command in our scripts where
>>>> u-boot is updated/the SPI NOR is written.
>>>>
>>>> We are *indeed* using pin multiplexing changes, in our case, they are
>>>> implemented in the spi controller driver: drivers/spi/kirkwood_spi.c. To be very
>>>> specific, in our case this sf release command allows to explicitely call
>>>> spi_flash_free() which calls spi_free_slave(), which in our case
>>>> (kirkwood_spi.c) sets the pins back to their previous configuration.
>>>
>>> Does your board use driver model from SPI and SPI flash? If not I
>>> think that should be the first step.
>>>
>>
>> No we don't. Could you please elaborate on how this would cover this use case
>> and should be the first step ?
>>
>> I am open to other ways to cover this use case of ours, especially since this
>> was done more than 2 years ago and u-boot has changed since then. However I
>> don't see the direct link between the driver model and how it would allow to
>> make sure spi_flash_free() is called in our u-boot env scripts.
> 
> In driver model you would have a remove() method for your SPI driver
> which does the required pinmux changing.

OK, when looking at SPI flash, SPI controller driver and the driver model, I
have found out why we require this "release" command.

So the SPI subsystem and its drivers (with or without DM support) make sure that
spi_claim_bus/release_bus are called before/after the accesses. This should
cover the pinmux configuration stuff.

In our case, it was not sufficient since drivers/spi/kirkwood_spi.c does the
pinmux configuration at 2 places: spi_claim_bus/release_bus for the IO
(MOSI/MISO/CLK) AND spi_setup_slave/free_slave for the chip select.

Since spi_free_slave is not always called after spi_setup_slave (for instance
after a sf probe command on the u-boot prompt), the CS pin was not always given
back to the NAND flash controller that's why there was a need for a sf release
command in our case.

I have now moved all the pinmux configuration for kirkwood_spi into
spi_claim_bus/release_bus and the need for this sf release command is not
necessary anymore.

I am going to test this a bit more and send a new patch series which will not
require this release command.

> 
> There is a detailed howto in doc/driver-model showing how to port your
> driver over. Please let me know if you need any help/ideas.

I have had a look at it and it is a great help on porting a driver to this
model. That's something we plan to do for our boards eventually.

Valentin

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-24 16:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-13 13:25 [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 0/3] Serial Flash: call spi_flash_free more coherently Valentin Longchamp
2015-11-13 13:25 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 1/3] cmd_sf: add 'release' command Valentin Longchamp
2015-11-19 16:57   ` Jagan Teki
2015-11-20 10:13     ` Valentin Longchamp
2015-11-20 17:19       ` Simon Glass
2015-11-23  9:19         ` Valentin Longchamp
2015-11-24  1:49           ` Simon Glass
2015-11-24 16:02             ` Valentin Longchamp [this message]
2015-11-25  3:52               ` Stefan Roese
2015-11-25  7:10                 ` Valentin Longchamp
2015-11-13 13:25 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 2/3] env_sf: generalize call to spi_flash_free after accesses Valentin Longchamp
2015-11-13 13:25 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 3/3] km_arm: call 'sf release' in the newenv and update scripts Valentin Longchamp

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=56548A12.9040407@keymile.com \
    --to=valentin.longchamp@keymile.com \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.