Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 12 Sep 2020 22:12:55 -0500
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Akash Asthana <akashast@codeaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Use the FIFO even more
Message-ID: <20200913031255.GR3715@yoga>
References: <20200912140730.1.Ie67fa32009b94702d56232c064f1d89065ee8836@changeid>
 <20200912225302.GA3715@yoga>
 <CAD=FV=VT+7RX=vdy0Ba_AB3dyMKVGu9uwP5bS2eew2W49BdcWA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=VT+7RX=vdy0Ba_AB3dyMKVGu9uwP5bS2eew2W49BdcWA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat 12 Sep 20:11 CDT 2020, Doug Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 3:53 PM Bjorn Andersson
> <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat 12 Sep 16:07 CDT 2020, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > In commit 902481a78ee4 ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO") I
> > > explained that the maximum size we could program the FIFO was
> > > "mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3" but that I chose "mas->tx_fifo_depth()"
> > > because I was worried about decreased bandwidth.
> > >
> > > Since that time:
> > > * All the interconnect patches have landed, making things run at the
> > >   proper speed.
> > > * I've done more measurements.
> > >
> > > This lets me confirm that there's really no downside of using the FIFO
> > > more.  Specifically I did "flashrom -p ec -r /tmp/foo.bin" on a
> > > Chromebook and averaged over several runs.
> >
> > Wouldn't there be a downside in the form of setting the watermark that
> > close to the full FIFO we have less room for being late handling the
> > interrupt? Or is there some mechanism involved that will prevent
> > the FIFO from being overrun?
> 
> Yeah, I had that worry too, but, as described in 902481a78ee4 ("spi:
> spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO"), it doesn't seem to be a
> problem.  From that commit: "We are the SPI master, so it makes sense
> that there would be no problems with overruns, the master should just
> stop clocking."
> 

Actually read the message of the linked commit now. I share your view
that this indicates that the controller does something wrt the clocking
to handle this case.

Change itself looks good, so:

Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>

Regards,
Bjorn