From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>
To: Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@wedev4u.fr>
Cc: "Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
"Yogesh Gaur" <yogeshnarayan.gaur@nxp.com>,
"Vignesh R" <vigneshr@ti.com>,
"Kamal Dasu" <kdasu.kdev@gmail.com>,
"Richard Weinberger" <richard@nod.at>,
linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, "Peter Pan" <peterpansjtu@gmail.com>,
"Marek Vasut" <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
"Frieder Schrempf" <frieder.schrempf@exceet.de>,
"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, "Rafał Miłecki" <rafal@milecki.pl>,
"Sourav Poddar" <sourav.poddar@ti.com>,
"Brian Norris" <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
"David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] spi: Extend the core to ease integration of SPI memory controllers
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:07:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180308150701.60435d9c@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180305144702.0afd663e@bbrezillon>
Hi Cyrille,
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:47:02 +0100
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> +
> > >>> +/**
> > >>> + * struct spi_mem_op - describes a SPI memory operation
> > >>> + * @cmd.buswidth: number of IO lines used to transmit the command
> > >>> + * @cmd.opcode: operation opcode
> > >>> + * @addr.nbytes: number of address bytes to send. Can be zero if the operation
> > >>> + * does not need to send an address
> > >>> + * @addr.buswidth: number of IO lines used to transmit the address cycles
> > >>> + * @addr.buf: buffer storing the address bytes
> > >>> + * @dummy.nbytes: number of dummy bytes to send after an opcode or address. Can
> > >>> + * be zero if the operation does not require dummy bytes
> > >>> + * @dummy.buswidth: number of IO lanes used to transmit the dummy bytes
> > >>> + * @data.buswidth: number of IO lanes used to send/receive the data
> > >>> + * @data.dir: direction of the transfer
> > >>> + * @data.buf.in: input buffer
> > >>> + * @data.buf.out: output buffer
> > >>> + */
> > >>> +struct spi_mem_op {
> > >>> + struct {
> > >>> + u8 buswidth;
> > >>> + u8 opcode;
> > >>> + } cmd;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + struct {
> > >>> + u8 nbytes;
> > >>> + u8 buswidth;
> > >>> + const u8 *buf;
> > >>
> > >> For the address value, I would rather use some loff_t type, instead of
> > >> const u8 *.
> > >> Actually, most (if not all) SPI flash controllers have some hardware
> > >> register to set the address value of the SPI flash command to be
> > >> sent. Hence having this value directly in the right format would avoid to
> > >> convert.
> > >
> > > What is the appropriate format? An address encoded in a 64-bit integer
> > > does not give any information on how these bytes should be transmitted
> > > on the bus. SPI NOR is passing the address in big endian, SPI NAND seems
> > > to do the same, but we're not sure this will be the case for all kind of
> > > memories or devices using this spi-mem protocol.
> > >
> > > Also, by passing it through an integer we limit ourselves to 8 bytes.
> > > That should be enough, but who knows :-).
> > >
> > > If we go for this loff_t field, we'll have to add an endianness field
> > > here and force all drivers to check it.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think we need any endianness field. We already use loff_t only,
> > without additional endianness paramater, in spi-nor but also in the above
> > MTD layer (see 'struct mtd_info') and till now it has just worked fine.
>
> It's not about the MTD layer. Can you predict that all devices will
> transmit the address in big-endian? I can't.
If you really want an loff_t (or u64) field here I'll change it (even
if I'm not convinced this is a good idea). In this case we'll just
assume that all devices expect addresses to be sent in big-endian on
the wire (MSB first).
>
> >
> > >> AFAIK, only m25p80 needs to convert from loff_t to u8 * and only
> > >> when using the regular SPI API, ie spi_sync(), as the 'struct
> > >> spi_flash_read_messag' already uses some integral type too.
> > >
> > > And I'm not sure this was a good idea.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> + } addr;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + struct {
> > >>> + u8 nbytes;
> > >>> + u8 buswidth;
> > >>> + } dummy;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + struct {
> > >>> + u8 buswidth;
> > >>> + enum spi_mem_data_dir dir;
> > >>> + unsigned int nbytes;
> > >>> + /* buf.{in,out} must be DMA-able. */
> > >>> + union {
> > >>> + void *in;
> > >>> + const void *out;
> > >>> + } buf;
> > >>> + } data;
> > >>
> > >> Also, you should add another member in this structure to set the 'type' of
> > >> operation for the SPI flash command:
> > >> - register read
> > >> - register write
> > >> - memory read
> > >> - memory write
> > >> - memory erase
> > >> [- SFDP read ? ]
> > >> [- OTP read/write ? ]
> > >
> > > No, really, that's not belonging here. It's entirely SPI NOR specific.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree with you on that. Except for SFDP of course, this will also apply to
> > SPI NAND as well. And this information should be passed down to the SPI (flash)
> > controller driver, instead of being lost at the SPI NAND/NOR levels,
>
> I'm not saying we should keep these information at the spi-nor/nand
> level, just saying we should find a way to make it look like a generic
> solution so that SPI controllers don't have to guess what they should
> do based on the memory operation type.
>
> Typically, why should a SPI controller care about whether the operation
> is an erase, a reg read or a reg write. From the controller PoV, it's
> just an spi-mem operation.
> The use cases you want to optimize are read/write user-data, and this
> can be done in different ways (direct memory mapping is one solution).
>
> > so the SPI
> > controller driver could take the proper actions (data cache flush/invalidation
> > for memory operations,
>
> This one has to do with direct mapping, so an API to allow direct
> mapping should help address that.
>
> > enabling/disabling on-the-fly data scrambling,
>
> And what's the problem with passing the scramble information on a
> per-operation basis and letting the upper layer decide when it's a good
> idea to use it or not?
>
> > and other
> > controller specific constraints).
>
Can we leave those additional improvements for later? I mean, we'd
better start passing extra information in the spi_mem_op struct when we
actually know what's needed instead of speculating on what the drivers
will need before having tried to convert them to the new approach.
Actually, I exercised the new interface by converting the fsl-qspi
driver and I didn't need the access-type information you're mentioning
here even though I'm using direct AHB accesses for the read path. I'm
not saying 'never', but 'let's wait until we have a real user'.
If you don't mind, I'd like to send a new version addressing all the
comments I received so far.
Regards,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-08 14:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-05 23:21 [RFC PATCH 0/6] spi: Extend the framework to generically support memory devices Boris Brezillon
[not found] ` <20180205232120.5851-1-boris.brezillon-LDxbnhwyfcJBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-05 23:21 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] spi: Extend the core to ease integration of SPI memory controllers Boris Brezillon
[not found] ` <20180205232120.5851-2-boris.brezillon-LDxbnhwyfcJBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-06 9:43 ` Maxime Chevallier
2018-02-06 10:25 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-02-06 12:06 ` Mark Brown
2018-02-09 12:52 ` Miquel Raynal
2018-02-11 16:00 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-02-12 11:50 ` Vignesh R
[not found] ` <40a44152-e62c-d57e-7646-7699301c29cc-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-12 12:28 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-02-28 7:51 ` Peter Pan
2018-02-28 12:25 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-03-04 21:15 ` Cyrille Pitchen
2018-03-05 9:00 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-03-05 13:01 ` Cyrille Pitchen
2018-03-05 13:47 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-03-08 14:07 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2018-02-05 23:21 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] spi: bcm-qspi: Implement the spi_mem interface Boris Brezillon
2018-02-05 23:21 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] spi: bcm53xx: " Boris Brezillon
2018-02-05 23:21 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] spi: ti-qspi: " Boris Brezillon
[not found] ` <20180205232120.5851-5-boris.brezillon-LDxbnhwyfcJBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-11 15:17 ` Miquel Raynal
2018-02-11 17:18 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-02-12 7:54 ` Miquel Raynal
2018-02-12 11:43 ` Vignesh R
[not found] ` <6a9eaaaf-20a6-b332-03d0-9d16e24d0b3d-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-12 12:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-02-12 16:00 ` Vignesh R
[not found] ` <67e61203-a2e9-853c-6cda-7226499611c2-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-12 16:08 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-02-14 16:25 ` Vignesh R
[not found] ` <0944fefa-6ef8-a93a-dad6-660044b8ec8e-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-14 19:09 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-02-14 20:44 ` Schrempf Frieder
[not found] ` <561c779b-28b1-ac8a-6b27-46b5ac59344b-wPoT/lNZgHizQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-14 21:00 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-02-15 16:38 ` Schrempf Frieder
2018-02-17 11:01 ` Vignesh R
[not found] ` <55878296-f1c9-434b-3c7e-e2f03f5824a9-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-17 21:52 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-02-16 10:25 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-02-05 23:21 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] mtd: spi-nor: Use the spi_mem_xx() API Boris Brezillon
[not found] ` <20180205232120.5851-6-boris.brezillon-LDxbnhwyfcJBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-12 11:44 ` Vignesh R
[not found] ` <933bd372-8b75-183f-0b03-563cabbbcc68-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-12 12:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-06-11 6:25 ` Yogesh Narayan Gaur
2018-06-11 7:35 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-02-05 23:21 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] spi: Get rid of the spi_flash_read() API Boris Brezillon
[not found] ` <20180205232120.5851-7-boris.brezillon-LDxbnhwyfcJBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-16 10:21 ` Vignesh R
[not found] ` <674d7b22-a3ac-e812-04db-aa0acb1671b0-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-16 10:24 ` Boris Brezillon
[not found] ` <20180219162510.GG32761@sirena.org.uk>
2018-03-04 21:40 ` [RFC PATCH 0/6] spi: Extend the framework to generically support memory devices Cyrille Pitchen
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=20180308150701.60435d9c@bbrezillon \
--to=boris.brezillon@bootlin.com \
--cc=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=cyrille.pitchen@wedev4u.fr \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=frieder.schrempf@exceet.de \
--cc=kdasu.kdev@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--cc=peterpansjtu@gmail.com \
--cc=rafal@milecki.pl \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=sourav.poddar@ti.com \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
--cc=yogeshnarayan.gaur@nxp.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 NNTP newsgroup(s).