Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 30 May 2022 17:26:32 +0300
From:   Ivan Bornyakov <i.bornyakov@metrotek.ru>
To:     Conor.Dooley@microchip.com
Cc:     mdf@kernel.org, hao.wu@intel.com, yilun.xu@intel.com,
        trix@redhat.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        system@metrotek.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/3] fpga: microchip-spi: add Microchip MPF FPGA
 manager
Message-ID: <20220530142632.3a6wgxbpwjd6a6kh@x260>
References: <20220526181344.2088-1-i.bornyakov@metrotek.ru>
 <20220526181344.2088-3-i.bornyakov@metrotek.ru>
 <f655cf2f-555c-6480-a461-bcddb9e510f3@microchip.com>
 <20220530120701.sedwn3qeohlnj52e@x260>
 <95c44458-aeff-e356-1e32-c8f735570c3a@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <95c44458-aeff-e356-1e32-c8f735570c3a@microchip.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 02:26:18PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> On 30/05/2022 13:07, Ivan Bornyakov wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:22:26AM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> >> On 26/05/2022 19:13, Ivan Bornyakov wrote:
> >>> +static int mpf_read_status(struct spi_device *spi)
> >>> +{
> >>> +       u8 status = 0, status_command = MPF_SPI_READ_STATUS;
> >>> +       /*
> >>> +        * Two identical SPI transfers are used for status reading.
> >>> +        * The reason is that the first one can be inadequate.
> >>> +        * We ignore it completely and use the second one.
> >>> +        */
> >>> +       struct spi_transfer xfers[] = {
> >>> +               [0 ... 1] = {
> >>> +                       .tx_buf = &status_command,
> >>> +                       .rx_buf = &status,
> >>> +                       .len = 1,
> >>> +                       .cs_change = 1,
> >>> +               }
> >>> +       };
> >>
> >> Hmm, I don't think that this is correct, or at least it is not
> >> correct from the polarfire /soc/ perspective. I was told that
> >> there was nothing different other than the envm between the
> >> programming for both devices - but this is another situation
> >> where I start to question that.
> >>
> >> When I run this code, ISC enable /never/ passes - failing due
> >> to timing out. I see something like this picture here:
> >> https://i.imgur.com/EKhd1S3.png
> >> You can see the 0x0B ISC enable coming through & then a status
> >> check after it.
> >>
> >> With the current code, the value of the "status" variable will
> >> be 0x0, given you are overwriting the first MISO value with the
> >> second. According to the hw guys, the spi hw status *should*
> >> only be returned on MISO in the first byte after SS goes low.
> >>
> >> If this is not the case for a non -soc part, which, as I said
> >> before, I don't have a board with the SPI programmer exposed
> >> for & I have been told is not the case then my comments can
> >> just be ignored entirely & I'll have some head scratching to
> >> do...
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Conor.
> >>
> > 
> > If I understood correctly, SS doesn't alter between two status reading
> > transactions despite .cs_change = 1. May be adding some .cs_change_delay
> > to spi_transfer struct can help with that?
> 
> D-oh - bug in the spi controller driver :)

So, no additional delay is needed?

> LGTM now, successfully programmed my PolarFire SoC with v12.
> I'd almost suggest adding a compatible for it too - but since
> the envm programming doesn't work I don't think that would be
> correct.
> 
> Tested-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 
> With a small comment about why it's using spi_sync_transfer():
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 

Thanks for your assistance, Conor!

> > 
> >>> +       int ret = spi_sync_transfer(spi, xfers, 2);
> >>> +
> >>> +       if ((status & MPF_STATUS_SPI_VIOLATION) ||
> >>> +           (status & MPF_STATUS_SPI_ERROR))
> >>> +               ret = -EIO;
> >>> +
> >>> +       return ret ? : status;
> >>> +}
> > 
>