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:   Wed, 10 Aug 2022 14:57:36 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@foss.st.com>
Cc:     Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
        linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        christophe.kerello@foss.st.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] spi: stm32_qspi: Add transfer_one_message() spi
 callback
Message-ID: <YvO5UKACe2FMa5K4@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20220810093215.794977-1-patrice.chotard@foss.st.com>
 <20220810093215.794977-2-patrice.chotard@foss.st.com>
 <YvOtZtrRHd4AT+j+@sirena.org.uk>
 <d41e3814-3fab-18a3-7218-d5c28eaecff8@foss.st.com>
 <YvOxOg0vXSGrZLfP@sirena.org.uk>
 <38200a6f-fdc1-fa94-7bc6-91ca528235ed@foss.st.com>
 <YvO1U7VB7WQv0oKR@sirena.org.uk>
 <cfc882a2-c8f3-0ec8-706e-a16dccc9fda7@foss.st.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qp2XHivCik8DSJHB"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cfc882a2-c8f3-0ec8-706e-a16dccc9fda7@foss.st.com>
Precedence: bulk


--qp2XHivCik8DSJHB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 03:52:39PM +0200, Patrice CHOTARD wrote:
> On 8/10/22 15:40, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Can't the controller figure this out by looking at the properties of the
> > connected devices?  You'd need to just return an error if we ever
> > triggered transfer_one_message() on a device that can't support the
> > operation.

> It should be a solution.

> I just noticed another point, property parallel-memories is an array of uint64 which represent device's size.
> In case a FPGA is connected to the qspi 8 line bus, parallel-memories property will be set with what ?
> simply random value to make dtbs_check happy ?

> IMHO, adding a new proprietary property would be cleaner.

I tend to agree that this is all rather unclear for things that aren't
actually storage.

--qp2XHivCik8DSJHB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmLzuU8ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9C8lgf/Ty/PVO0gORA+r8yXkatIJMlVbunpNkmNDYE+OPE1h59+rHpcNnt4pzcv
JACDJhEStqwIsqNOfBxHD5J7D4+jbRvCXhiL70yqKhOTw64DkUa65AJY136SSqLS
XGvpjz1QMv98fljk/zS1PBDAQ8ysQ7xtY2wxQh+aqelNiTgsDb8TFC/T22C/iDxF
2tRbU6HlL6VKoUUKHOvB4lBuTOo2gyMuloxVASblBnOqOO8Sb9er8P1ka4R1+BxE
76U+2YCwNiDOZaug7c39cUKHWwYXwArj7TUlSszHiROFyHe0pkW0m/G550FVa9uF
r5LLiJ7asVOVuuRyf5ow2bvxvAl6Yw==
=Ovrt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qp2XHivCik8DSJHB--