Re: [PATCH 02/10] mtd: st_spi_fsm: Supply all register address andbit logic defines

[Sourav Poddar]

On Monday 18 November 2013 11:02 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:02:26PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > Like I say I'm suggesting that the bit of the code that understands the
> > > > flash chip is separate to the bit of code that knows the mechanics of
> > > > sending commands and data to the chip.
> > > The issue is that almost the entire driver is controller side. The
> > > only bits that are the same (and not in all cases) are the OPCODEs,
> > > but they are one liners (21 lines out of 1153). Most of the
> > > controllers which use this stuff could reuse quite a bit of the m25p80
> > > driver as they just write the message containing the OPCODE as the
> > > m25p80 driver sets it up, but that's simply not the case with our
> > > controller. We would have to pull the OPCODE out and based on which
> > > one it is, we'd have to build our own message.
> > OK, so then perhaps the abstraction here is simply to export the table
> > with the opcodes from the m25p80 driver so that when someone comes along
> > and adds a new chip they can just add it there and other drivers will
> > get the update too.
> We could do that, although I'd have to insist on extending the current
> framework to add a configuration call-back, as it's the neatest way to
> configure chip specific attributes.
This looks like the problem which some other controllers(from ti,
freescale) are facing.
I will just summarise the problem with the ti qspi flash controller 
which I am
working on. There is a set of registers which need to be filled with flash
specific commands. One way to deal it with to provide a device tree bindings
for all the requirements(which is really cumbersome.).

Similarly, for freescale there is a LUT registers which has such flash 
requirements.

So, surely we need a way out from m25p80 driver to handle such cases.

drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c


int pass_flash_info () {

   u8 info[6];

     info[0] = DUMMY WR;
     info[1] = RD_OPCODE;
     info[2] - DUMMY BITS;
     ......
    .......
   spi_write(flash, info, 6)
}
Then, somehow parse this information to set up the required info.
 This is just a rough idea, and can be implemented in a better way.
>   I can get a patch out tomorrow if the MTD guys agree. Where are they
> by the way? I haven't seen hide nor hair of them since sending out the
> patch set.
>
> > > Put it this way, if we tried to use the m25p80 our controller driver
> > > would most likely be twice as large and twice as complex as it is
> > > currently, which is exactly the inverse of what we're trying to
> > > achieve here.
> > If we're having to add new flashes to multiple drivers I'd not say we're
> > winning.
> I agree.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/