Re: [PATCH] spi: Add FSI-attached SPI controller driver

From: Eddie James
Date: Fri Feb 07 2020 - 14:28:55 EST



On 2/5/20 9:51 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:06 PM Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/4/20 5:02 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 10:33 PM Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/30/20 10:37 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:09 PM Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...

+ struct device *dev;
Isn't fsl->dev the same?
Perhaps kernel doc to explain the difference?
No, it's not the same, as dev here is the SPI controller. I'll add a
comment.
Why to have duplication then?

Nothing is being duplicated, the two variables are storing entirely
different information, both of which are necessary for each SPI
controller that this driver is driving.
Oh, I see now, thanks!

...

+ for (i = 0; i < num_bytes; ++i)
+ rx[i] = (u8)((in >> (8 * ((num_bytes - 1) - i))) & 0xffULL);
Redundant & 0xffULL part.

Isn't it NIH of get_unalinged_be64 / le64 or something similar?
No, these are shift in/out operations. The read register will also have
previous operations data in them and must be extracted with only the
correct number of bytes.
Why not to call put_unaligned() how the tail in this case (it's 0 or
can be easily made to be 0) will affect the result?

The shift-in is not the same as any byte-swap or unaligned operation.
For however many bytes we've read, we start at that many bytes
left-shifted in the register and copy out to our buffer, moving right
for each next byte... I don't think there is an existing function for
this operation.
For me it looks like

u8 tmp[8];

put_unaligned_be64(in, tmp);
memcpy(rx, tmp, num_bytes);

put_unaligned*() is just a method to unroll the value to the u8 buffer.
See, for example, linux/unaligned/be_byteshift.h implementation.


Unforunately it is not the same. put_unaligned_be64 will take the highest 8 bits (0xff00000000000000) and move it into tmp[0]. Then 0x00ff000000000000 into tmp[1], etc. This is only correct for this driver IF my transfer is 8 bytes. If, for example, I transfer 5 bytes, then I need 0x000000ff00000000 into tmp[0], 0x00000000ff000000 into tmp[1], etc. So I think my current implementation is correct.


Thanks,

Eddie



+ return num_bytes;
+}
+static int fsi_spi_data_out(u64 *out, const u8 *tx, int len)
+{
Ditto as for above function. (put_unaligned ...)
Ditto.

I don't understand how this could work for transfers of less than 8
bytes, any put_unaligned would access memory that it doesn't own.
Ditto.

+}