Hi Sagar,
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:25 AM Sagar Kadam <sagar.ka...@sifive.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Bin,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 5:43 PM
> > To: Sagar Kadam <sagar.ka...@sifive.com>
> > Cc: U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>; Rick Chen
> > <r...@andestech.com>; Paul Walmsley ( Sifive) <paul.walms...@sifive.com>;
> > Jagan Teki <ja...@amarulasolutions.com>; Anup Patel
> > <anup.pa...@wdc.com>
> > Subject: Re: [U-Boot Patch v2 2/4] spi: fu540: add claim and release method
> > to spi-sifive.c
> >
> > Hi Sagar,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:02 AM Sagar Shrikant Kadam
> > <sagar.ka...@sifive.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add missing bus claim/release method to spi driver for HiFive
> > > Unleashed, and handle num_cs generously so that it generates an error
> > > if invalid cs number is passed to sf probe.
> >
> > Is adding the claim/release method the fix to the weird "sf probe 0:2/4/6/8"
> > issue?
> >
> Please see below.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sagar Shrikant Kadam <sagar.ka...@sifive.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/spi/spi-sifive.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-sifive.c b/drivers/spi/spi-sifive.c index
> > > 969bd4b..f990ad6 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-sifive.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-sifive.c
> > > @@ -186,6 +186,36 @@ static void sifive_spi_tx(struct sifive_spi *spi,
> > > const
> > u8 *tx_ptr)
> > > writel(tx_data, spi->regs + SIFIVE_SPI_REG_TXDATA); }
> > >
> > > +static int sifive_spi_claim_bus(struct udevice *dev) {
> > > + int ret;
> > > + struct udevice *bus = dev->parent;
> > > + struct sifive_spi *spi = dev_get_priv(bus);
> > > + struct dm_spi_slave_platdata *slave =
> > > +dev_get_parent_platdata(dev);
> > > +
> > > + if (!(slave->cs < spi->num_cs)) {
> >
> > slave->cs >= spi->num_cs
> >
> > But there is already check added recently in the spi-uclass driver, see
> > below:
> >
> > commit 7bacce524d48594dae399f9ee9280ab105f6c8cf
> > Author: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon Sep 9 06:00:02 2019 -0700
> >
> > dm: spi: Check cs number before accessing slaves
> >
> > Add chip select number check in spi_find_chip_select().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>
> > Tested-by: Jagan Teki <ja...@amarulasolutions.com> # SoPine
> >
> > Adding check in the sifive spi driver seems to unnecessary. Could you please
> > confirm?
> >
> Ahh!!. Thanks for the pointer Bin.
> This V2 patch here is based on commit c05b38df477a ("common: fix regression
> on block cache init"), so didn't come across the patch you pointed out.
> So for now we can skip the check in sifive spi driver.
>
> > > + printf("Invalid cs number = %d\n", slave->cs);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + sifive_spi_prep_device(spi, slave);
> > > +
> > > + ret = sifive_spi_set_cs(spi, slave);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int sifive_spi_release_bus(struct udevice *dev) {
> > > + struct sifive_spi *spi = dev_get_priv(dev->parent);
> > > +
> > > + sifive_spi_clear_cs(spi);
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> >
> > What was done in the sifive_spi_claim_bus / sifive_spi_release_bus seems to
> > be already done in sifive_spi_xfer(). See flags testing against
> > SPI_XFER_BEGIN
> > and SPI_XFER_END.
> >
> > Could you please explain a little bit on why adding these 2 fixes things?
> >
> What I saw was that sf probe was detecting flash even at wrong chip select
> inputs,
> Like sf probe 0:2/4/6/.. this indicated that a check to validate chip selects
> needs to be
> there. The gist of adding the claim function was to introduce this chip
> select check.
> The code within SPI_XFER_BEGIN and END functions missed this check.
> Now that the commit your pointed 7bacce524d48 handles this, I think
> we can drop this check as of now.
>
> > > +
> > > static int sifive_spi_xfer(struct udevice *dev, unsigned int bitlen,
> > > const void *dout, void *din, unsigned long
> > > flags) { @@ -345,6 +375,10 @@ static int sifive_spi_probe(struct
> > > udevice *bus)
> > > /* init the sifive spi hw */
> > > sifive_spi_init_hw(spi);
> > >
> > > + /* Fetch number of chip selects from DT if present */
> > > + ret = dev_read_u32_default(bus, "num-cs", spi->num_cs);
> > > + spi->num_cs = ret;
> >
> > spi->num_cs is already assigned a value in sifive_spi_init_hw(), Why
> > do we override the value using DT's?
> >
> Yes, spi_init_hw does initialise the spi->num_cs by reading the register.
> For QSPI0 and QSPI2 it is set to 1 (as per the cs_width). But for QSPI1 it is
> set to 4. Consider a case where user wishes to populate only 1 chip select
> for QSPI1
> then it can be done in respective <board>-dts file and can be updated after
> sifive_spi_init_hw
> is done. If the board device tree doesn't contain any such entry than above
> API will retain the
> value of spi->num_cs populated in sifive_spi_init_hw().
So why is such override necessary? If we don't do this, would it cause
any problem?
IOW, is this patch actually fixing anything that was seen on the
Unleashed board?
> So to summarize, we can drop claim/release addition from this patch and just
> keep the dev_read_u32_default function done above.
> Please let me know your opinion here.
>
Regards,
Bin
