RE: [PATCH 6/6] spi: tegra210-quad: combined sequence mode

[Krishna Yarlagadda]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 04 February 2022 19:39
> To: Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx; Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> linux-spi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sowjanya Komatineni
> <skomatineni@xxxxxxxxxx>; Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] spi: tegra210-quad: combined sequence mode
> 
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 03:59:36PM +0530, Krishna Yarlagadda wrote:
> 
> > +	/* Process individual transfer list */
> > +	list_for_each_entry(xfer, &msg->transfers, transfer_list) {
> > +		if (transfer_phase == CMD_TRANSFER) {
> 
> > +		} else if (transfer_phase == ADDR_TRANSFER) {
> 
> > +		} else {
> 
> Looks like you're writing a switch statement here...
Yes. This can be switch statement.
> 
> > +			/* X1 SDR mode */
> > +			cmd_config = tegra_qspi_cmd_config(false, 0,
> > +							   xfer->len);
> > +			cmd_value = *((const u8 *)(xfer->tx_buf));
> > +
> > +			len = xfer->len;
> 
> > +			/* X1 SDR mode */
> > +			addr_config = tegra_qspi_addr_config(false, 0,
> > +							     xfer->len);
> > +			address_value = *((const u32 *)(xfer->tx_buf));
> 
> > +			/* Program Command, Address value in register */
> > +			tegra_qspi_writel(tqspi, cmd_value,
> QSPI_CMB_SEQ_CMD);
> > +			tegra_qspi_writel(tqspi, address_value,
> > +					  QSPI_CMB_SEQ_ADDR);
> > +			/* Program Command and Address config in register
> */
> > +			tegra_qspi_writel(tqspi, cmd_config,
> > +					  QSPI_CMB_SEQ_CMD_CFG);
> > +			tegra_qspi_writel(tqspi, addr_config,
> > +					  QSPI_CMB_SEQ_ADDR_CFG);
> 
> It looks like the command and address have to be specific lengths?  If that's the
> case then
Cmd  and address are configurable to a limit. Will add min and max check.
> 
> > +	if (cdata->is_cmb_xfer && transfer_count == 3)
> > +		ret = tegra_qspi_combined_seq_xfer(tqspi, msg);
> > +	else
> > +		ret = tegra_qspi_non_combined_seq_xfer(tqspi, msg);
> 
> This check needs to be more specific.  But like I said in reply to the binding
> patch I don't see why we can't just pattern match on the data without requiring
> a property here, we'd need to check that the message is suitable no matter
> what.
There is no real-world use case we encountered so far preventing us stick to pattern.
But this was to avoid any corner case where there could be 3 different transfers sent in single msg.