Message-ID: <1447250654.19991.15.camel@mhfsdcap03>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Mediatek SPI-NOR flash driver
From: bayi cheng <bayi.cheng@mediatek.com>
To: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
CC: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "Ian Campbell" <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        "Daniel Kurtz" <djkurtz@chromium.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <srv_heupstream@mediatek.com>,
        <jteki@openedev.com>, <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:04:14 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20151110024611.GL12143@google.com>
References: <1446824889-16144-1-git-send-email-bayi.cheng@mediatek.com>
	 <20151110024611.GL12143@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3456
Lines: 84

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 18:46 -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Bayi,
> 
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:48:06PM +0800, Bayi Cheng wrote:
> > This series is based on v4.3-rc1 and l2-mtd.git [0] and erase_sector
> > implementation patch [1]
> > 
> > [0]: git://git.infradead.org/l2-mtd.git
> > [1]: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-October//062959.html
> > 
> > Change in v6:
> > 1: delete mt8173_nor_do_rx
> > 2: delete mt8173_nor_do_rx
> > 3: add mt8173_nor_do_tx_rx for general usage
> > 4: support nor flash with 6 IDs
> > 5: delete mt8173_nor_erase_sector and use "nor->erase_opcode"
> > 6: add mt8173_nor_set_addr to programming the address register
> > 7: initialize the ppdata in mtk_nor_init
> 
> This series is looking a lot better to me. Thanks for incorporating (and
> I hope fully reviewing and testing!) my suggested changes. I have a just
> a few small comments that I might post to the driver patch, and if
> that's all that's outstanding, I can fix them up myself before applying.
> 
> I believe you didn't completely answer all my questions from v5 though.
> I'll repeat a bit here. Particularly, refer to [1].
> I'll summarize; I understand that your common transmit/receive operation
> works something like this:
> 
> Quoting from [1]:
> > (1) total number of bits to send/receive goes in the COUNT register (so
> >     far, as many as 7*8=56?)
> > (2) opcode is written to PRGDATA5
> > (3) other "transmit" data (like addresses), if any, are placed on PRGDATA4..0
> > (4) command is sent (execute_cmd())
> > (5) data is read back in SHREG{X..0}, if needed
> 
> My questions were:
> 
> (a) Why does mt8173_nor_set_read_mode() use PRGDATA3? That's not
>     mentioned in the SoC manual, and it doesn't really match any of the
>     steps above. Perhaps it's just a quirk of the controller's
>     programming model?
> 
yes, for this question, I have done some testes, If I change the
PRGDATA3 to PRGDATA5 for mt8173_nor_set_read_mode() like others
functions, then the controller will be hanged, and I have asked our
designer for double confirm.

> (b) How do you determine X from step (5)?
> 
> Right now, your code seems to answer that X is "rxlen - 1". Correct?
> 
yes, I have used "rxlen -1", because the first of nor flash output is
located at SHREG[0], in the other words, the output data starts at
SHREG[0] and go up to SHREG[relen -1]

> If that's correct and if I put all of my understanding together
> correctly, this means that you can actually shift out (in PRGDATA) up to
> 6 bytes (that is, 1 opcode and 5 tx bytes) and shift in (in SHREG) up to
> 7 bytes, except that the first byte is received during the opcode cycle,
> and so it is discarded, and we effectively receive only 6 bytes.
> 
> Is that all correct? If so, then I think you still need to adjust the
> boundary conditions in your do_tx_rx() function. (I'll comment on the
> driver to point out the specifics.)

Yes, you are right! and I will adjust the boundary conditions in
do_tx_rx() function.

By the way, could you tell me whether I need to publish a new patch? or
you can fix them up directly?
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-October/062951.html


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/