RE: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: SAMSUNG: Bug fix for SPI with different FIFO level

[Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>]

Kukjin Kim wrote:
> 
> Grant Likely wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Grant Likely
<grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:29 AM, padma venkat <padma.kvr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> > Hi Jassi,
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jassi Brar
> <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, padma venkat
<padma.kvr@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>> Hi Tony,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Tony Nadackal <tonykn@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>>> Hi Padma,
> > >> >>>> With regards to your patch, even though one can check the tx
done
> > status
> > >> >>>> using the TX_DONE bit, the present macro itself would work
> perfectly
> > fine if
> > >> >>>> the 'fifo_lvl_mask' is set properly.
> > >> >>>> For example in 6450 channel 1, the fifo_lvl_mask should be 0x1ff
> (for
> > 9bits,
> > >> >>>> 15:23), while even in your patch, it is wrongly set as 0x7f(only
> 7bits).
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Thus, if this fifo_lvl_mask was defined correctly, the existing
> macro
> > would
> > >> >>>> itself have worked.
> > >> >>> Thanks for your comment.
> > >> >>> I considered changing to the fifo_lvl_mask to 1ff as you
mentioned.
> > >> >>> But I  think that the fifo_lvl_mask reflects the actual FIFO
> capacity
> > >> >>> in the SPI driver.
> > >> >>> For the failing channels the FIFO trigger level is 64 bytes and
so
> i
> > >> >>> retained that value.
> > >> >>> In the driver it polls till the FIFO capacity level otherwise it
> goes
> > >> >>> for DMA.So if we keep
> > >> >>> the FIFO level as 1ff when the actual capacity is 7f then it
fails.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Jassi what do you think about this?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 'fifo_lvl_mask' is h/w specific and can't be set for convenience.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I don't have access to post-s3c64xx datasheets.
> > >> >> Please check and reply if TX_DONE bit is at same offset for all
> > >> >> channels of an SoC, because
> > >> >> I suspect it's otherwise.
> > >> >>
> > >> > Yes. The TX_DONE bit is at the same offset for all the channels of
an
> SoC.
> > >> > in S5P64X0,S5PV210 and S5PV310 it is at offset 25.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Then, Patches-1,2
> > >>
> > >> Acked-by: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Are these bug fixes that should be in v3.0, or do I queue them up for
> v3.1?
> >
> > Regardless, this one touches a lot of arch/arm files, so I'd rather
> > see both patches go through the samsung tree:
> >
> > Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
> >
> 
> Thanks Grant, Jassi and all,
> 
> I will apply these 1 and 2 in my -fix tree for 3.0 with your acks.
> 
Oops, this needs previous 'cleanup spi platform specific code' so can't
apply -fix tree now.

Padmavathi, I will apply these 1 and 2 on -next for 3.1 after your updated
'cleanup spi' patches...
If any problems, please let me know.

Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.