On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 09:02:15 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On 30 October 2015 at 04:55, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Jagan, > > > > On 28 October 2015 at 13:08, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >> On 29 October 2015 at 00:17, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> > Hi Jagan, > >> > > >> > On 19 October 2015 at 03:28, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi Simon, > >> >> > >> >> On 19 October 2015 at 01:57, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> >>> Hi Jagan, > >> >>> > >> >>> On 12 October 2015 at 09:00, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: > >> >>>> Previous version link: > >> >>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/233262 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> spi-flash layer need to tune a lot for better code handling and > >> >>>> to sync with Linux spi-nor. So below areas got updated in this > >> >>>> series. - BAR handling > >> >>>> - spi_flash_cmd_wait_ready updates. > >> >>>> - Separate core spi-flash handling and spi-flash interface > >> >>>> > >> >>>> (interface between spi drivers vs spi-flash layer) > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Currently I'm working on spi-nor framework for u-boot which > >> >>>> is slighly same as Linux spi-nor core with addition of > >> >>>> u-boot driver model to it. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> This series will be starting point to add spi-nor functionalities. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> TODO: > >> >>>> - MTD core addition to spi-flash layer. > >> >>>> - spi-nor core addition. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Code sizes: > >> >>>> After: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> dm: > >> >>>> text data bss dec hex filename > >> >>>> > >> >>>> 354820 12016 221112 587948 8f8ac u-boot > >> >>>> > >> >>>> non-dm > >> >>>> > >> >>>> text data bss dec hex filename > >> >>>> > >> >>>> 354317 11876 221124 587317 8f635 u-boot > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Before: > >> >>>> dm > >> >>>> > >> >>>> text data bss dec hex filename > >> >>>> > >> >>>> 354878 12016 221096 587990 8f8d6 u-boot > >> >>>> > >> >>>> non-dm > >> >>>> > >> >>>> text data bss dec hex filename > >> >>>> > >> >>>> 354447 11876 221124 587447 8f6b7 u-boot > >> >>> > >> >>> I don't think you should be adding new features to the > >> >>> non-driver-model SPI flash code. We are supposed to be migrating > >> >>> everything to driver model, so it would be better to move your > >> >>> boards over, and then work to deprecate and remove the old code. > >> >>> Adding new features to it sends the wrong message. > >> >> > >> >> spi-flash core code doesn't require to add driver model, and cmd_sf > >> >> to spi-flash code is already supporting driver model. > >> >> > >> >> OK, let me explain in-detail. > >> >> > >> >> Code in sf_probe.c supports both dm and non dm-spi-flash and flash > >> >> initialization code using > >> >> spi_flash_validate_params. sf.c acts as interface between spi drivers > >> >> vs spi-flash code. > >> >> So the spi-flash initialization code(part of sf_probe) and code in > >> >> sf_ops are commonly categorized as spi-flash core code and this will > >> >> not require driver model, so-that the dm drivers will simply use this > >> >> common code for spi-flash core functionality. > >> >> > >> >> This patch series will separate all the necessary existing code into > >> >> core and spi-flash vs spi drivers interface code. So at ends > >> >> - sf_probe is simply the copy of sf.c and dm and non-dm spi-flash > >> >> code so this will acts a spi-flash vs spi drivers interface. (which > >> >> has dm and non-dm as same as before) > >> >> - sf_ops is core spi-flash functionality. > >> >> > >> >> On top of this I'm adding actual spi-nor core code, where sf_ops.c > >> >> will become spi-nor.c and sf_probe.c will become spi-nor-flash.c. > >> >> - spi-nor.c: Core SPI NOR > >> >> - spi-nor-flash: spi drivers vs spi-nor interface (which has dm and > >> >> non-dm as same as before) > >> >> > >> >> The reason for adding this spi-nor is to move flash code from > >> >> spi-drivers, example fsl_qspi and at the end this fsl_qspi will move > >> >> from spi drivers to spi-nor that will be in driver model. > >> >> > >> >> I'm simply adding new core functionality with adding new drivers as > >> >> dm-driven, I don't think this will not effect/change the driver model > >> >> growth. > >> >> > >> >> View of spi-nor framework: > >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> cmd_sf > >> >> > >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> spi_flash > >> >> > >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> MTD Core > >> >> > >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> sf-uclass > >> >> > >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> SPI-NOR > >> >> > >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> spi-nor-flash drivers/mtd/spi/* > >> >> > >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> spi-uclass > >> >> > >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> drivers/spi/* > >> >> > >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> drivers/mtd/spi/spi-nor.c: spi-nor core (not require to add dm) > >> >> drivers/mtd/spi/spi-flash-nor.c: spi-nor to spi drivers interface > >> >> (dm-driven) drivers/mtd/spi/fsl-quadspi.c: spi-nor controller driver > >> >> (dm-driven) > >> >> > >> >> Please let me know for any more comments. > >> > > >> > Perhaps another way of asking this is, what is the plan to remove the > >> > non-DM code from SF or at least stop adding new features to it. > >> > >> Sorry I didn't understand "remove non-dm code" or either I missed > >> something here. > >> > >> The plan is not to remove any code intentionally it's about following > >> feature additions > >> 1) Tuning up spi-flash framework: Separating Core spi-flash code and > >> interface code between spi-flash vs spi drivers > >> 2) Adding MTD core support to spi-flash core (no spi_flash ops - > >> mtd_ops will use) > >> 3) Introduce spi-nor core (spi-flash core becomes spi-nor) and new > >> spi-nor controller drivers are part of this like fsl_qspi or etc. > >> spi-nor controllers and interface code between spi-flash vs > >> spi-drivers become UCLASS_SPI_NOR > >> > >> Agenda is to add SPI-NOR framework(almost similar to Linux) with > >> driver model(as UCLASS_SPI_NOR) > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> ----------------------- > >> > >> cmd_spi cmd_sf > >> > >> -------|---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ------------------------ > >> > >> | spi_flash > >> > >> -------|---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ------------------------ > >> > >> | MTD Core > >> > >> -------|---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ------------------------ > >> > >> | spi-nor-uclass > >> > >> -------|---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ------------------------ > >> > >> | SPI-NOR Core > >> | (spi-nor.c) > >> > >> -------|---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ------------------------- > >> > >> | |=========spi-nor-flash > >> > >> drivers/mtd/spi/fsl_qspi > >> > >> | | (m25p80.c) > >> > >> (fsl-quadspi.c) > >> > >> --------|-------V------------------------------------------------------- > >> ---------------------------- > >> > >> spi-uclass > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> -------------------------- > >> > >> drivers/spi/* > >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Let me know for any more comments? > > > > This is quite a big topic. Also you are the maintainer, not me. So I > > don't want to interfere. It's just that I am conscious that my SPI > > flash conversion was incomplete, in that: > > > > - it still provides the old API (and we need to keep this until every > > board migrates) > > - it still uses struct spi_flash as a parameter, when it should really > > use struct udevice > > - the concept of chip select number and bus number are still present, > > but in the end these should just be devices > > > > So I'm keen to keep moving things in the direction of 'fully migrated'. > > > > Adding a new feature like SPI nor seems like a good oppty to encourage > > people to move over to driver model - .e.g if the new feature is only > > available with driver model. > > Just park this spi-nor stuff, once I send all patches will discuss more. > > This series is for code re-factorization like separating spi-flash > core functionality vs spi-driver interface from spi-flash core. Did > you find any wrong on this?
Why don't we converge toward Linux's spi-nor stack instead ? _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
