Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] spi: cadence-qspi: add FIFO depth detection quirk

[Théo Lebrun]

Hello,

On Mon Apr 8, 2024 at 4:38 PM CEST, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon Apr 8, 2024 at 4:10 PM CEST, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 05:02:15PM +0200, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> >
> > > Use hardware ability to read the FIFO depth thanks to
> > > CQSPI_REG_SRAMPARTITION that is partially read-only. Keep current
> > > behavior identical for existing compatibles.
> >
> > The behaviour is not identical here - we now unconditionally probe the
> > FIFO depth on all hardware, the difference with the quirk is that we
> > will ignore any DT property specifying the depth.
>
> You are correct of course. Wording is incorrect. I wanted to highlight
> that FIFO depth does not change for existing HW and still relies as
> before on devicetree value.
>
> > > -	if (of_property_read_u32(np, "cdns,fifo-depth", &cqspi->fifo_depth)) {
> > > +	if (!(ddata && ddata->quirks & CQSPI_DETECT_FIFO_DEPTH) &&
> > > +	    of_property_read_u32(np, "cdns,fifo-depth", &cqspi->fifo_depth)) {
> > >  		dev_err(dev, "couldn't determine fifo-depth\n");
> >
> > It's not obvious from just the code that we do handle having a FIFO
> > depth property and detection in the detection code, at least a comment
> > would be good.
>
> I see. Will add comment or rework code to make more straight forward, or
> both.
>
> > > +static void cqspi_controller_detect_fifo_depth(struct cqspi_st *cqspi)
> > > +{
> > > +	const struct cqspi_driver_platdata *ddata = cqspi->ddata;
> > > +	struct device *dev = &cqspi->pdev->dev;
> > > +	u32 reg, fifo_depth;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Bits N-1:0 are writable while bits 31:N are read as zero, with 2^N
> > > +	 * the FIFO depth.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	writel(U32_MAX, cqspi->iobase + CQSPI_REG_SRAMPARTITION);
> > > +	reg = readl(cqspi->iobase + CQSPI_REG_SRAMPARTITION);
> > > +	fifo_depth = reg + 1;
> > > +
> > > +	if (ddata && ddata->quirks & CQSPI_DETECT_FIFO_DEPTH) {
> > > +		cqspi->fifo_depth = fifo_depth;
> > > +		dev_dbg(dev, "using FIFO depth of %u\n", fifo_depth);
> > > +	} else if (fifo_depth != cqspi->fifo_depth) {
> > > +		dev_warn(dev, "detected FIFO depth (%u) different from config (%u)\n",
> > > +			 fifo_depth, cqspi->fifo_depth);
> > > +	}
> >
> > It's not obvious to me that we should ignore an explicitly specified
> > property if the quirk is present
>
> DT value isn't expected for compatibles with CQSPI_DETECT_FIFO_DEPTH
> quirk, therefore we do not ignore a specified property. Bindings agree:
> prop is false with EyeQ5 compatible.
>
> > - if anything I'd more expect to see
> > the new warning in that case, possibly with a higher severity if we're
> > saying that the quirk means we're more confident that the data reported
> > by the hardware is reliable.  I think what I'd expect is that we always
> > use an explicitly specified depth (hopefully the user was specifying it
> > for a reason?).
>
> The goal was a simpler devicetree on Mobileye platform. This is why we
> add this behavior flag. You prefer the property to be always present?
> This is a only a nice-to-have, you tell me what you prefer.
>
> I wasn't sure all HW behaved in the same way wrt read-only bits in
> SRAMPARTITION, and I do not have access to other platforms exploiting
> this driver. This is why I kept behavior reserved for EyeQ5-integrated
> IP block.
>
> > Pulling all the above together can we just drop the quirk and always do
> > the detection, or leave the quirk as just controlling the severity with
> > which we log any difference between detected and explicitly configured
> > depths?
>
> If we do not simplify devicetree, then I'd vote for dropping this patch
> entirely. Adding code for detecting such an edge-case doesn't sound
> useful. Especially since this kind of error should only occur to people
> adding new hardware support; those probably do not need a nice
> user-facing error message. What do you think?

Option you hinted at on dt-bindings patch sounds nice to my ears:

 - Optional devicetree property;
 - If present, check HW value and warn if different;
 - If absent, use HW value.

This makes for a nice devicetree and simplifies driver code by removing
one quirk.

Sorry for delayed second thought.

Thanks,

--
Théo Lebrun, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com