[PATCH] spi: atmel: improve internal vs gpio chip-select choice

[PATCH] spi: atmel: improve internal vs gpio chip-select choice

[Nicolas Ferre]

Le 08/01/2016 01:11, Mans Rullgard a ?crit :
> The driver currently chooses between internal chip-select or gpio
> based on the existence of the cs-gpios DT property which fails on
> non-DT systems and also enforces the same choice for all devices.

Well, I fear that such a per-device choice may impact further the driver
than just moving a field from one structure to another... Moreover, I
have the feeling that it was not the objective of this patch.

> This patch makes the method per device instead of per controller
> and fixes the selection on non-DT systems.  With these changes,
> the chip-select method for each device is chosen according to the
> following priority:
> 
> 1. GPIO from device tree
> 2. GPIO from platform data
> 3. Internal chip-select
> 
> Tested on AVR32 ATSTK1000.

This patch breaks the SAMA5D2 SPI support at least on most recent
linux-next (tested by Cyrille).

more remarks below...

> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <mans@mansr.com>
> ---
>  drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c b/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
> index aebad36391c9..8be07fb67d4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
> @@ -310,7 +310,6 @@ struct atmel_spi {
>  
>  	bool			use_dma;
>  	bool			use_pdc;
> -	bool			use_cs_gpios;
>  	/* dmaengine data */
>  	struct atmel_spi_dma	dma;
>  
> @@ -324,6 +323,7 @@ struct atmel_spi {
>  struct atmel_spi_device {
>  	unsigned int		npcs_pin;
>  	u32			csr;
> +	bool			use_cs_gpio;
>  };
>  
>  #define BUFFER_SIZE		PAGE_SIZE
> @@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ static void cs_activate(struct atmel_spi *as, struct spi_device *spi)
>  		}
>  
>  		mr = spi_readl(as, MR);
> -		if (as->use_cs_gpios)
> +		if (asd->use_cs_gpio)
>  			gpio_set_value(asd->npcs_pin, active);
>  	} else {
>  		u32 cpol = (spi->mode & SPI_CPOL) ? SPI_BIT(CPOL) : 0;
> @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ static void cs_activate(struct atmel_spi *as, struct spi_device *spi)
>  
>  		mr = spi_readl(as, MR);
>  		mr = SPI_BFINS(PCS, ~(1 << spi->chip_select), mr);
> -		if (as->use_cs_gpios && spi->chip_select != 0)
> +		if (asd->use_cs_gpio && spi->chip_select != 0)
>  			gpio_set_value(asd->npcs_pin, active);
>  		spi_writel(as, MR, mr);
>  	}
> @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ static void cs_deactivate(struct atmel_spi *as, struct spi_device *spi)
>  			asd->npcs_pin, active ? " (low)" : "",
>  			mr);
>  
> -	if (!as->use_cs_gpios)
> +	if (!asd->use_cs_gpio)
>  		spi_writel(as, CR, SPI_BIT(LASTXFER));
>  	else if (atmel_spi_is_v2(as) || spi->chip_select != 0)
>  		gpio_set_value(asd->npcs_pin, !active);
> @@ -1221,8 +1221,6 @@ static int atmel_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>  		csr |= SPI_BIT(CPOL);
>  	if (!(spi->mode & SPI_CPHA))
>  		csr |= SPI_BIT(NCPHA);
> -	if (!as->use_cs_gpios)
> -		csr |= SPI_BIT(CSAAT);
>  
>  	/* DLYBS is mostly irrelevant since we manage chipselect using GPIOs.
>  	 *
> @@ -1233,21 +1231,28 @@ static int atmel_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>  	csr |= SPI_BF(DLYBS, 0);
>  	csr |= SPI_BF(DLYBCT, 0);
>  
> -	/* chipselect must have been muxed as GPIO (e.g. in board setup) */
> -	npcs_pin = (unsigned long)spi->controller_data;
> -
> -	if (!as->use_cs_gpios)
> -		npcs_pin = spi->chip_select;
> -	else if (gpio_is_valid(spi->cs_gpio))
> -		npcs_pin = spi->cs_gpio;
> -
>  	asd = spi->controller_state;
>  	if (!asd) {
>  		asd = kzalloc(sizeof(struct atmel_spi_device), GFP_KERNEL);
>  		if (!asd)
>  			return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -		if (as->use_cs_gpios) {
> +		npcs_pin = (unsigned long)spi->controller_data;
> +
> +		if (gpio_is_valid(spi->cs_gpio)) {

The bug may come from here as the logic is somehow inverted and a "0" is
a valid gpio according to this gpio_is_valid() function. So we may take
this conditional branch instead of the third one in the sama5d2 case.

> +			/* GPIO from DT */
> +			npcs_pin = spi->cs_gpio;
> +			asd->use_cs_gpio = true;
> +		} else if (npcs_pin && gpio_is_valid(npcs_pin)) {
> +			/* GPIO from platform data */
> +			asd->use_cs_gpio = true;
> +		} else {
> +			/* internal chip-select */
> +			npcs_pin = spi->chip_select;
> +			asd->use_cs_gpio = false;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (asd->use_cs_gpio) {
>  			ret = gpio_request(npcs_pin, dev_name(&spi->dev));
>  			if (ret) {
>  				kfree(asd);
> @@ -1262,6 +1267,8 @@ static int atmel_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>  		spi->controller_state = asd;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (!asd->use_cs_gpio)
> +		csr |= SPI_BIT(CSAAT);
>  	asd->csr = csr;
>  
>  	dev_dbg(&spi->dev,
> @@ -1569,13 +1576,6 @@ static int atmel_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	atmel_get_caps(as);
>  
> -	as->use_cs_gpios = true;
> -	if (atmel_spi_is_v2(as) &&

I don't see this atmel_spi_is_v2() test in the resulting code anymore:
did you make sure that the v1 of the peripheral is protected?

> -	    !of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node, "cs-gpios", NULL)) {
> -		as->use_cs_gpios = false;
> -		master->num_chipselect = 4;

This line is pretty important: you mustn't remove it blindly!


> -	}
> -
>  	as->use_dma = false;
>  	as->use_pdc = false;
>  	if (as->caps.has_dma_support) {
> 

So, sorry but it's a NACK for me.

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

[PATCH] spi: atmel: improve internal vs gpio chip-select choice

[Måns Rullgård]

Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> writes:

> Le 08/01/2016 01:11, Mans Rullgard a ?crit :
>> The driver currently chooses between internal chip-select or gpio
>> based on the existence of the cs-gpios DT property which fails on
>> non-DT systems and also enforces the same choice for all devices.
>
> Well, I fear that such a per-device choice may impact further the driver
> than just moving a field from one structure to another...

Could you please elaborate?

> Moreover, I have the feeling that it was not the objective of this
> patch.

Your feeling is mistaken.  If it's somehow impossible to mix CS types,
please explain why.

>> This patch makes the method per device instead of per controller
>> and fixes the selection on non-DT systems.  With these changes,
>> the chip-select method for each device is chosen according to the
>> following priority:
>> 
>> 1. GPIO from device tree
>> 2. GPIO from platform data
>> 3. Internal chip-select
>> 
>> Tested on AVR32 ATSTK1000.
>
> This patch breaks the SAMA5D2 SPI support at least on most recent
> linux-next (tested by Cyrille).

How did it fail?

> more remarks below...
>
>> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <mans@mansr.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c b/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
>> index aebad36391c9..8be07fb67d4d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
>> @@ -310,7 +310,6 @@ struct atmel_spi {
>>  
>>  	bool			use_dma;
>>  	bool			use_pdc;
>> -	bool			use_cs_gpios;
>>  	/* dmaengine data */
>>  	struct atmel_spi_dma	dma;
>>  
>> @@ -324,6 +323,7 @@ struct atmel_spi {
>>  struct atmel_spi_device {
>>  	unsigned int		npcs_pin;
>>  	u32			csr;
>> +	bool			use_cs_gpio;
>>  };
>>  
>>  #define BUFFER_SIZE		PAGE_SIZE
>> @@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ static void cs_activate(struct atmel_spi *as, struct spi_device *spi)
>>  		}
>>  
>>  		mr = spi_readl(as, MR);
>> -		if (as->use_cs_gpios)
>> +		if (asd->use_cs_gpio)
>>  			gpio_set_value(asd->npcs_pin, active);
>>  	} else {
>>  		u32 cpol = (spi->mode & SPI_CPOL) ? SPI_BIT(CPOL) : 0;
>> @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ static void cs_activate(struct atmel_spi *as, struct spi_device *spi)
>>  
>>  		mr = spi_readl(as, MR);
>>  		mr = SPI_BFINS(PCS, ~(1 << spi->chip_select), mr);
>> -		if (as->use_cs_gpios && spi->chip_select != 0)
>> +		if (asd->use_cs_gpio && spi->chip_select != 0)
>>  			gpio_set_value(asd->npcs_pin, active);
>>  		spi_writel(as, MR, mr);
>>  	}
>> @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ static void cs_deactivate(struct atmel_spi *as, struct spi_device *spi)
>>  			asd->npcs_pin, active ? " (low)" : "",
>>  			mr);
>>  
>> -	if (!as->use_cs_gpios)
>> +	if (!asd->use_cs_gpio)
>>  		spi_writel(as, CR, SPI_BIT(LASTXFER));
>>  	else if (atmel_spi_is_v2(as) || spi->chip_select != 0)
>>  		gpio_set_value(asd->npcs_pin, !active);
>> @@ -1221,8 +1221,6 @@ static int atmel_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>>  		csr |= SPI_BIT(CPOL);
>>  	if (!(spi->mode & SPI_CPHA))
>>  		csr |= SPI_BIT(NCPHA);
>> -	if (!as->use_cs_gpios)
>> -		csr |= SPI_BIT(CSAAT);
>>  
>>  	/* DLYBS is mostly irrelevant since we manage chipselect using GPIOs.
>>  	 *
>> @@ -1233,21 +1231,28 @@ static int atmel_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>>  	csr |= SPI_BF(DLYBS, 0);
>>  	csr |= SPI_BF(DLYBCT, 0);
>>  
>> -	/* chipselect must have been muxed as GPIO (e.g. in board setup) */
>> -	npcs_pin = (unsigned long)spi->controller_data;
>> -
>> -	if (!as->use_cs_gpios)
>> -		npcs_pin = spi->chip_select;
>> -	else if (gpio_is_valid(spi->cs_gpio))
>> -		npcs_pin = spi->cs_gpio;
>> -
>>  	asd = spi->controller_state;
>>  	if (!asd) {
>>  		asd = kzalloc(sizeof(struct atmel_spi_device), GFP_KERNEL);
>>  		if (!asd)
>>  			return -ENOMEM;
>>  
>> -		if (as->use_cs_gpios) {
>> +		npcs_pin = (unsigned long)spi->controller_data;
>> +
>> +		if (gpio_is_valid(spi->cs_gpio)) {
>
> The bug may come from here as the logic is somehow inverted and a "0" is
> a valid gpio according to this gpio_is_valid() function. So we may take
> this conditional branch instead of the third one in the sama5d2 case.

spi->cs_gpio is set to -ENOENT if none is specified so I don't think
this should be a problem.

>> +			/* GPIO from DT */
>> +			npcs_pin = spi->cs_gpio;
>> +			asd->use_cs_gpio = true;
>> +		} else if (npcs_pin && gpio_is_valid(npcs_pin)) {
>> +			/* GPIO from platform data */
>> +			asd->use_cs_gpio = true;
>> +		} else {
>> +			/* internal chip-select */
>> +			npcs_pin = spi->chip_select;
>> +			asd->use_cs_gpio = false;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		if (asd->use_cs_gpio) {
>>  			ret = gpio_request(npcs_pin, dev_name(&spi->dev));
>>  			if (ret) {
>>  				kfree(asd);
>> @@ -1262,6 +1267,8 @@ static int atmel_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>>  		spi->controller_state = asd;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	if (!asd->use_cs_gpio)
>> +		csr |= SPI_BIT(CSAAT);
>>  	asd->csr = csr;
>>  
>>  	dev_dbg(&spi->dev,
>> @@ -1569,13 +1576,6 @@ static int atmel_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  
>>  	atmel_get_caps(as);
>>  
>> -	as->use_cs_gpios = true;
>> -	if (atmel_spi_is_v2(as) &&
>
> I don't see this atmel_spi_is_v2() test in the resulting code anymore:
> did you make sure that the v1 of the peripheral is protected?

You're right, that check seems to have fallen by the wayside.

>> -	    !of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node, "cs-gpios", NULL)) {
>> -		as->use_cs_gpios = false;
>> -		master->num_chipselect = 4;
>
> This line is pretty important: you mustn't remove it blindly!

That may be the real cause of whatever problem you saw.

>> -	}
>> -
>>  	as->use_dma = false;
>>  	as->use_pdc = false;
>>  	if (as->caps.has_dma_support) {
>> 
>
> So, sorry but it's a NACK for me.

Thanks for reviewing.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd

[PATCH] spi: atmel: improve internal vs gpio chip-select choice

[Cyrille Pitchen]

Hi Mans,

Le 11/01/2016 16:26, Nicolas Ferre a ?crit :
> Le 08/01/2016 01:11, Mans Rullgard a ?crit :
[...]
>> @@ -1569,13 +1576,6 @@ static int atmel_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  
>>  	atmel_get_caps(as);
>>  
>> -	as->use_cs_gpios = true;
>> -	if (atmel_spi_is_v2(as) &&
> 
> I don't see this atmel_spi_is_v2() test in the resulting code anymore:
> did you make sure that the v1 of the peripheral is protected?
> 
>> -	    !of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node, "cs-gpios", NULL)) {
>> -		as->use_cs_gpios = false;
>> -		master->num_chipselect = 4;
> 
> This line is pretty important: you mustn't remove it blindly!
> 
> 

Actually, few lines above master->num_chipselect is initialized with:
	master->dev.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
[...]
	master->num_chipselect = master->dev.of_node ? 0 : 4;


So 0 in the case of DT support, 4 otherwise.


Now looking at the source code of spi_register_master(), this function:

1 - calls of_spi_register_master(), which initializes master->num_chipselect:
	nb = of_gpio_name_count(np, "cs-gpios");
	master->num_chipselect = max_t(int, nb, master->num_chipselect);

	if (nb == 0 || nb == -ENOENT)
		return 0;

2 - check master->num_chipselect with:
	if (master->num_chipselect == 0)
		return -EINVAL;

It means that in the case of DT support, master->num_chipselect was initialized
according to the value of the "cs-gpios" DT property. Hence this property used
to be mandatory but now we want it to be optional for hardware version 2 and
later.

This is why we added a check "hw version >= 2 and cs-gpios missing". In such
a case the master->num_chipselect was initialized to 4 so spi_register_master()
does not fail with -EINVAL.

I have applied the following fix after your patch and now the driver works
again on sama5d2:

--- a/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
@@ -1576,6 +1576,11 @@ static int atmel_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
        atmel_get_caps(as);
 
+       if (atmel_spi_is_v2(as) &&
+           master->dev.of_node &&
+           !of_get_property(master->dev.of_node, "cs-gpios", NULL))
+               master->num_chipselect = 4;
+
        as->use_dma = false;
        as->use_pdc = false;
        if (as->caps.has_dma_support) {

>> -	}
>> -
>>  	as->use_dma = false;
>>  	as->use_pdc = false;
>>  	if (as->caps.has_dma_support) {
>>
> 
> So, sorry but it's a NACK for me.
> 
> Bye,
> 

Best regards,

Cyrille

[PATCH] spi: atmel: improve internal vs gpio chip-select choice

[Måns Rullgård]

Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@atmel.com> writes:

> Hi Mans,
>
> Le 11/01/2016 16:26, Nicolas Ferre a ?crit :
>> Le 08/01/2016 01:11, Mans Rullgard a ?crit :
> [...]
>>> @@ -1569,13 +1576,6 @@ static int atmel_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  
>>>  	atmel_get_caps(as);
>>>  
>>> -	as->use_cs_gpios = true;
>>> -	if (atmel_spi_is_v2(as) &&
>> 
>> I don't see this atmel_spi_is_v2() test in the resulting code anymore:
>> did you make sure that the v1 of the peripheral is protected?
>> 
>>> -	    !of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node, "cs-gpios", NULL)) {
>>> -		as->use_cs_gpios = false;
>>> -		master->num_chipselect = 4;
>> 
>> This line is pretty important: you mustn't remove it blindly!
>> 
>> 
>
> Actually, few lines above master->num_chipselect is initialized with:
> 	master->dev.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> [...]
> 	master->num_chipselect = master->dev.of_node ? 0 : 4;
>
> So 0 in the case of DT support, 4 otherwise.
>
> Now looking at the source code of spi_register_master(), this function:
>
> 1 - calls of_spi_register_master(), which initializes master->num_chipselect:
> 	nb = of_gpio_name_count(np, "cs-gpios");
> 	master->num_chipselect = max_t(int, nb, master->num_chipselect);
>
> 	if (nb == 0 || nb == -ENOENT)
> 		return 0;
>
> 2 - check master->num_chipselect with:
> 	if (master->num_chipselect == 0)
> 		return -EINVAL;
>
> It means that in the case of DT support, master->num_chipselect was
> initialized according to the value of the "cs-gpios" DT
> property. Hence this property used to be mandatory but now we want it
> to be optional for hardware version 2 and later.
>
> This is why we added a check "hw version >= 2 and cs-gpios
> missing". In such a case the master->num_chipselect was initialized to
> 4 so spi_register_master() does not fail with -EINVAL.
>
> I have applied the following fix after your patch and now the driver works
> again on sama5d2:
>
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
> @@ -1576,6 +1576,11 @@ static int atmel_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
>         atmel_get_caps(as);
>
> +       if (atmel_spi_is_v2(as) &&
> +           master->dev.of_node &&
> +           !of_get_property(master->dev.of_node, "cs-gpios", NULL))
> +               master->num_chipselect = 4;
> +
>         as->use_dma = false;
>         as->use_pdc = false;
>         if (as->caps.has_dma_support) {

That's pretty much what I did (left the original alone) in v2 of the
patch.

Thanks for testing.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd

[PATCH] spi: atmel: improve internal vs gpio chip-select choice

[Nicolas Ferre]

Le 11/01/2016 16:43, M?ns Rullg?rd a ?crit :
> Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> writes:
> 
>> Le 08/01/2016 01:11, Mans Rullgard a ?crit :
>>> The driver currently chooses between internal chip-select or gpio
>>> based on the existence of the cs-gpios DT property which fails on
>>> non-DT systems and also enforces the same choice for all devices.
>>
>> Well, I fear that such a per-device choice may impact further the driver
>> than just moving a field from one structure to another...
> 
> Could you please elaborate?

Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is that the DT property may
need to be  to the SPI device node and not the controller anymore, for a
need of coherency.
That would imply modifying the binding and I don't want that for such an
useless "improvement".

>> Moreover, I have the feeling that it was not the objective of this
>> patch.
> 
> Your feeling is mistaken.  If it's somehow impossible to mix CS types,
> please explain why.

Please only fix the avr32 issue with CS gpio selection that I admit we
have. I don't need nor want to mix CS types: it just doesn't make sense
to allow it.


>>> This patch makes the method per device instead of per controller
>>> and fixes the selection on non-DT systems.  With these changes,
>>> the chip-select method for each device is chosen according to the
>>> following priority:
>>>
>>> 1. GPIO from device tree
>>> 2. GPIO from platform data
>>> 3. Internal chip-select
>>>
>>> Tested on AVR32 ATSTK1000.
>>
>> This patch breaks the SAMA5D2 SPI support at least on most recent
>> linux-next (tested by Cyrille).
> 
> How did it fail?
> 
>> more remarks below...
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <mans@mansr.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c b/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
>>> index aebad36391c9..8be07fb67d4d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
>>> @@ -310,7 +310,6 @@ struct atmel_spi {
>>>  
>>>  	bool			use_dma;
>>>  	bool			use_pdc;
>>> -	bool			use_cs_gpios;
>>>  	/* dmaengine data */
>>>  	struct atmel_spi_dma	dma;
>>>  
>>> @@ -324,6 +323,7 @@ struct atmel_spi {
>>>  struct atmel_spi_device {
>>>  	unsigned int		npcs_pin;
>>>  	u32			csr;
>>> +	bool			use_cs_gpio;
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  #define BUFFER_SIZE		PAGE_SIZE
>>> @@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ static void cs_activate(struct atmel_spi *as, struct spi_device *spi)
>>>  		}
>>>  
>>>  		mr = spi_readl(as, MR);
>>> -		if (as->use_cs_gpios)
>>> +		if (asd->use_cs_gpio)
>>>  			gpio_set_value(asd->npcs_pin, active);
>>>  	} else {
>>>  		u32 cpol = (spi->mode & SPI_CPOL) ? SPI_BIT(CPOL) : 0;
>>> @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ static void cs_activate(struct atmel_spi *as, struct spi_device *spi)
>>>  
>>>  		mr = spi_readl(as, MR);
>>>  		mr = SPI_BFINS(PCS, ~(1 << spi->chip_select), mr);
>>> -		if (as->use_cs_gpios && spi->chip_select != 0)
>>> +		if (asd->use_cs_gpio && spi->chip_select != 0)
>>>  			gpio_set_value(asd->npcs_pin, active);
>>>  		spi_writel(as, MR, mr);
>>>  	}
>>> @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ static void cs_deactivate(struct atmel_spi *as, struct spi_device *spi)
>>>  			asd->npcs_pin, active ? " (low)" : "",
>>>  			mr);
>>>  
>>> -	if (!as->use_cs_gpios)
>>> +	if (!asd->use_cs_gpio)
>>>  		spi_writel(as, CR, SPI_BIT(LASTXFER));
>>>  	else if (atmel_spi_is_v2(as) || spi->chip_select != 0)
>>>  		gpio_set_value(asd->npcs_pin, !active);
>>> @@ -1221,8 +1221,6 @@ static int atmel_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>>>  		csr |= SPI_BIT(CPOL);
>>>  	if (!(spi->mode & SPI_CPHA))
>>>  		csr |= SPI_BIT(NCPHA);
>>> -	if (!as->use_cs_gpios)
>>> -		csr |= SPI_BIT(CSAAT);
>>>  
>>>  	/* DLYBS is mostly irrelevant since we manage chipselect using GPIOs.
>>>  	 *
>>> @@ -1233,21 +1231,28 @@ static int atmel_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>>>  	csr |= SPI_BF(DLYBS, 0);
>>>  	csr |= SPI_BF(DLYBCT, 0);
>>>  
>>> -	/* chipselect must have been muxed as GPIO (e.g. in board setup) */
>>> -	npcs_pin = (unsigned long)spi->controller_data;
>>> -
>>> -	if (!as->use_cs_gpios)
>>> -		npcs_pin = spi->chip_select;
>>> -	else if (gpio_is_valid(spi->cs_gpio))
>>> -		npcs_pin = spi->cs_gpio;
>>> -
>>>  	asd = spi->controller_state;
>>>  	if (!asd) {
>>>  		asd = kzalloc(sizeof(struct atmel_spi_device), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>  		if (!asd)
>>>  			return -ENOMEM;
>>>  
>>> -		if (as->use_cs_gpios) {
>>> +		npcs_pin = (unsigned long)spi->controller_data;
>>> +
>>> +		if (gpio_is_valid(spi->cs_gpio)) {
>>
>> The bug may come from here as the logic is somehow inverted and a "0" is
>> a valid gpio according to this gpio_is_valid() function. So we may take
>> this conditional branch instead of the third one in the sama5d2 case.
> 
> spi->cs_gpio is set to -ENOENT if none is specified so I don't think
> this should be a problem.
> 
>>> +			/* GPIO from DT */
>>> +			npcs_pin = spi->cs_gpio;
>>> +			asd->use_cs_gpio = true;
>>> +		} else if (npcs_pin && gpio_is_valid(npcs_pin)) {
>>> +			/* GPIO from platform data */
>>> +			asd->use_cs_gpio = true;
>>> +		} else {
>>> +			/* internal chip-select */
>>> +			npcs_pin = spi->chip_select;
>>> +			asd->use_cs_gpio = false;
>>> +		}
>>> +
>>> +		if (asd->use_cs_gpio) {
>>>  			ret = gpio_request(npcs_pin, dev_name(&spi->dev));
>>>  			if (ret) {
>>>  				kfree(asd);
>>> @@ -1262,6 +1267,8 @@ static int atmel_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>>>  		spi->controller_state = asd;
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> +	if (!asd->use_cs_gpio)
>>> +		csr |= SPI_BIT(CSAAT);
>>>  	asd->csr = csr;
>>>  
>>>  	dev_dbg(&spi->dev,
>>> @@ -1569,13 +1576,6 @@ static int atmel_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  
>>>  	atmel_get_caps(as);
>>>  
>>> -	as->use_cs_gpios = true;
>>> -	if (atmel_spi_is_v2(as) &&
>>
>> I don't see this atmel_spi_is_v2() test in the resulting code anymore:
>> did you make sure that the v1 of the peripheral is protected?
> 
> You're right, that check seems to have fallen by the wayside.
> 
>>> -	    !of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node, "cs-gpios", NULL)) {
>>> -		as->use_cs_gpios = false;
>>> -		master->num_chipselect = 4;
>>
>> This line is pretty important: you mustn't remove it blindly!
> 
> That may be the real cause of whatever problem you saw.
> 
>>> -	}
>>> -
>>>  	as->use_dma = false;
>>>  	as->use_pdc = false;
>>>  	if (as->caps.has_dma_support) {
>>>
>>
>> So, sorry but it's a NACK for me.
> 
> Thanks for reviewing.
> 


-- 
Nicolas Ferre

[PATCH] spi: atmel: improve internal vs gpio chip-select choice

[Måns Rullgård]

Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> writes:

> Le 11/01/2016 16:43, M?ns Rullg?rd a ?crit :
>> Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Le 08/01/2016 01:11, Mans Rullgard a ?crit :
>>>> The driver currently chooses between internal chip-select or gpio
>>>> based on the existence of the cs-gpios DT property which fails on
>>>> non-DT systems and also enforces the same choice for all devices.
>>>
>>> Well, I fear that such a per-device choice may impact further the driver
>>> than just moving a field from one structure to another...
>> 
>> Could you please elaborate?
>
> Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is that the DT property may
> need to be  to the SPI device node and not the controller anymore, for a
> need of coherency.
> That would imply modifying the binding and I don't want that for such an
> useless "improvement".
>
>>> Moreover, I have the feeling that it was not the objective of this
>>> patch.
>> 
>> Your feeling is mistaken.  If it's somehow impossible to mix CS types,
>> please explain why.
>
> Please only fix the avr32 issue with CS gpio selection that I admit we
> have. I don't need nor want to mix CS types: it just doesn't make sense
> to allow it.

OK, fine.  I thought it could be useful (and it works), but apparently
you disagree.

Now the trouble with a global gpio vs internal setting is that we don't
know whether the non-DT platform data provides a gpio for the slave
devices when the master device is probed.  One possibility is to make
the choice based on the first slave to be registered and insist that the
rest follow suit.  I don't really like it, but I can't think of anything
else off the top of my head.  Do you have any better suggestions?

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd

[PATCH] spi: atmel: improve internal vs gpio chip-select choice

[Måns Rullgård]

Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> writes:

> Le 11/01/2016 16:43, M?ns Rullg?rd a ?crit :
>> Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Le 08/01/2016 01:11, Mans Rullgard a ?crit :
>>>> The driver currently chooses between internal chip-select or gpio
>>>> based on the existence of the cs-gpios DT property which fails on
>>>> non-DT systems and also enforces the same choice for all devices.
>>>
>>> Well, I fear that such a per-device choice may impact further the driver
>>> than just moving a field from one structure to another...
>> 
>> Could you please elaborate?
>
> Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is that the DT property may
> need to be  to the SPI device node and not the controller anymore, for a
> need of coherency.
> That would imply modifying the binding and I don't want that for such an
> useless "improvement".
>
>>> Moreover, I have the feeling that it was not the objective of this
>>> patch.
>> 
>> Your feeling is mistaken.  If it's somehow impossible to mix CS types,
>> please explain why.
>
> Please only fix the avr32 issue with CS gpio selection that I admit we
> have. I don't need nor want to mix CS types: it just doesn't make sense
> to allow it.

There's also this comment in spi.h regarding struct spi_master:

 * @cs_gpios: Array of GPIOs to use as chip select lines; one per CS
 *	number. Any individual value may be -ENOENT for CS lines that
 *	are not GPIOs (driven by the SPI controller itself).


-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd