Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] spi: spi-altera-dfl: support n5010 feature revision

[Tom Rix]

On 7/5/21 3:16 AM, Martin Hundebøll wrote:
> From: Martin Hundebøll <mhu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The Max10 BMC on the Silicom n5010 PAC is slightly different than the
> existing BMCs, so use a dedicated feature revision detect it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Hundebøll <mhu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Moritz Fischer <mdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Changes since v3:
>   * Changed "BMC's" to "BMCs"
>   * Added Moritz' Reviewed-by
>
> Changes since v2:
>   * None
>
> Changes since v1:
>   * use feature revision from struct dfl_device instead of reading it
>     from io-mem
>
>   drivers/spi/spi-altera-dfl.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-altera-dfl.c b/drivers/spi/spi-altera-dfl.c
> index 3e32e4fe5895..f6cf7c8d9dac 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-altera-dfl.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-altera-dfl.c
> @@ -111,6 +111,13 @@ static struct spi_board_info m10_bmc_info = {
>   	.chip_select = 0,
>   };
>   
> +static struct spi_board_info m10_n5010_bmc_info = {
> +	.modalias = "m10-n5010",
> +	.max_speed_hz = 12500000,
> +	.bus_num = 0,
> +	.chip_select = 0,
> +};

Other then the modalias, this is exactly the same as m10_bmc_info.

Why not set platform_data?

> +
>   static void config_spi_master(void __iomem *base, struct spi_master *master)
>   {
>   	u64 v;
> @@ -130,6 +137,7 @@ static void config_spi_master(void __iomem *base, struct spi_master *master)
>   
>   static int dfl_spi_altera_probe(struct dfl_device *dfl_dev)
>   {
> +	struct spi_board_info *board_info = &m10_bmc_info;
>   	struct device *dev = &dfl_dev->dev;
>   	struct spi_master *master;
>   	struct altera_spi *hw;
> @@ -172,9 +180,12 @@ static int dfl_spi_altera_probe(struct dfl_device *dfl_dev)
>   		goto exit;
>   	}
>   
> -	if (!spi_new_device(master,  &m10_bmc_info)) {
> +	if (dfl_dev->revision == FME_FEATURE_REV_MAX10_SPI_N5010)
> +		board_info = &m10_n5010_bmc_info;

The revision is board parameter, I think this check could be improved.

There should be a

#define FME_FATURE_REV_MAX10_SPI_D5005 0

And it checked here instead of setting above.

And -EINVAL returned if the revision is not known.

> +
> +	if (!spi_new_device(master, board_info)) {
>   		dev_err(dev, "%s failed to create SPI device: %s\n",
> -			__func__, m10_bmc_info.modalias);
> +			__func__, board_info->modalias);

Why isn't this error handled ?

Tom

>   	}
>   
>   	return 0;