From: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
devicetree-discuss list <devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] powerpc: NAND: FSL UPM: document new bindings
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:42:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49CB31CB.2010704@grandegger.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa686aa40903252209r52a1bc1cn995a7da16bc3527f@mail.gmail.com>
Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com> wrote:
>> Grant Likely wrote:
>>> For the chip offset, it's not clear what the meaning is. First, does
>>> the UPM controller support access of multiple chips simultaneously?
>> The offset drives the corresponding address lines, which are used to
>> select the chip. That's how it's done on the TQM8548 board. In
>> principle, the chips could also be selected through dedicated GPIO pins.
>> Well, I'm not a hardware guy.
>
> Heh. I mean elaborate in the binding documentation. :-)
>
>>> If so, then can you elaborate in the description on how board design
>>> translates to a chip-offset value. If it cannot, then it might be
>>> better to have multiple tuples in the 'reg' property for each discrete
>>> chip. Multiple reg tuples would also remove the need for the
>>> num-chips property.
>> The node still describes one device mapping all relevant control
>> registers. How about using fsl,upm-chip-offsets = <0x200 0x400>. It
>> would be more generic and makes num-chips obsolete as well. And the
>> property would be reserved for that way of implementing the chip select
>> in hardware.
>
> It really sounds like this binding is describing multiple NAND chips
> mapped to different base addresses (and looking at the fsm_upm.c
> driver appears to confirm it). So, does this work? reg = <3 0x200 4
> 3 0x400 4>;
The chip-offset, and not the address, needs to be added to the MAR
register as well before running the pattern:
mar = cmd << (32 - fun->upm.width);
if (fun->chip_offset && fun->chip_number > 0)
mar |= fun->chip_number * fun->chip_offset;
fsl_upm_run_pattern(&fun->upm, chip->IO_ADDR_R, mar);
> It is true that other methods could be used for implementing the chip
> select, but that is *not* what the proposed binding describes. This
> proposed binding describes NAND chips selected by address lines
> (particular addresses), and in this case I think using reg is the
> natural description.
OK, the chips are selected by accessing a defined address range. Will
prepare a patch using the reg property.
Wolfgang.
> g.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-26 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-25 10:08 [PATCH v3 0/4] NAND: Multi-chip support for FSL-UPM for TQM8548 modules Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-25 10:08 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] NAND: FSL-UPM: add multi chip support Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-25 10:08 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] NAND: FSL-UPM: Add wait flags to support board/chip specific delays Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-25 10:08 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] powerpc: NAND: FSL UPM: document new bindings Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-25 10:08 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] powerpc/85xx: TQM8548: Update DTS file for multi-chip support Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] powerpc: NAND: FSL UPM: document new bindings Anton Vorontsov
2009-03-25 17:48 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-25 20:48 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-26 5:09 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-26 7:42 ` Wolfgang Grandegger [this message]
2009-03-26 14:27 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-26 15:33 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-26 16:04 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-26 16:35 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-26 17:02 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-26 17:33 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-03-26 22:14 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-26 23:22 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-26 23:32 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-03-27 8:07 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-25 15:01 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] NAND: FSL-UPM: Add wait flags to support board/chip specific delays Anton Vorontsov
2009-03-25 10:43 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] NAND: FSL-UPM: add multi chip support Singh, Vimal
2009-03-25 10:57 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-25 13:31 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-25 13:32 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-25 13:43 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2009-03-25 17:26 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-25 14:57 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-03-25 15:25 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
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=49CB31CB.2010704@grandegger.com \
--to=wg@grandegger.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
/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).