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
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox