[RFC PATCH 4/6] spi: ti-qspi: Implement the spi_mem interface

[Boris Brezillon]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:44:20 +0000
Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf at exceet.de> wrote:

> Hi Boris, hi Vignesh,
> 
> On 14.02.2018 20:09, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 21:55:10 +0530
> > Vignesh R <vigneshr at ti.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 12-Feb-18 9:38 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:30:09 +0530
> >>> Vignesh R <vigneshr at ti.com> wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>> On 12-Feb-18 6:01 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> >>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:13:55 +0530
> >>>>> Vignesh R <vigneshr at ti.com> wrote:
> >>>>>        
> >>>>>> On Tuesday 06 February 2018 04:51 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> >>>>>>> From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The spi_mem interface is meant to replace the spi_flash_read() one.
> >>>>>>> Implement the ->exec_op() method so that we can smoothly get rid of the
> >>>>>>> old interface.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>    drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >>>>>>>    1 file changed, 72 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c b/drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c
> >>>>>>> index c24d9b45a27c..40cac3ef6cc9 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>        
> >>>>>>> +static const struct spi_controller_mem_ops ti_qspi_mem_ops = {
> >>>>>>> +   .exec_op = ti_qspi_exec_mem_op,  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>          .supports_op = ti_qspi_supports_mem_op,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Its required as per spi_controller_check_ops() in Patch 1/6  
> >>>>>        
> >>>>> ->supports_op() is optional, and if it's missing, the core will do the  
> >>>>> regular QuadSPI/DualSPI/SingleSPI check (see spi_mem_supports_op()
> >>>>> implementation).  
> >>>>
> >>>> You might have overlooked spi_controller_check_ops() from Patch 1/6:
> >>>> +static int spi_controller_check_ops(struct spi_controller *ctlr)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	/*
> >>>> +	 * The controller can implement only the high-level SPI-memory
> >>>> +	 * operations if it does not support regular SPI transfers.
> >>>> +	 */
> >>>> +	if (ctlr->mem_ops) {
> >>>> +		if (!ctlr->mem_ops->supports_op ||
> >>>> +		    !ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op)
> >>>> +			return -EINVAL;
> >>>> +	} else if (!ctlr->transfer && !ctlr->transfer_one &&
> >>>> +		   !ctlr->transfer_one_message) {
> >>>> +		return -EINVAL;
> >>>> +	}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	return 0;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>>
> >>>> So if ->supports_op() is not populated by SPI controller driver, then
> >>>> driver probe fails with -EINVAL. This is what I observed on my TI
> >>>> hardware when testing this patch series.  
> >>>
> >>> Correct. Then I should fix spi_controller_check_ops() to allow empty
> >>> ctlr->mem_ops->supports_op.
> >>>      
> >>>>     
> >>>>> This being said, if you think a custom ->supports_op()
> >>>>> implementation is needed for this controller I can add one.
> >>>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>> spi_mem_supports_op() should suffice for now if above issue is fixed.  
> >>>
> >>> Cool. IIUC, you tested the series on a TI SoC. Does it work as
> >>> expected? Do you see any perf regressions?
> >>>      
> >>
> >> I am planning to collect throughput numbers with this series for TI
> >> QSPI. I don't think there would be noticeable degradation.  
> > 
> > Ok.
> >   
> >> But, it would be interesting to test for a driver thats now under
> >> drivers/mtd/spi-nor moved to drivers/spi and see if added overhead of
> >> m25p80 layer + spi core has any impact.  
> > 
> > I'm working with Frieder on the fsl-qspi rework, so we should have
> > numbers soon.  
> 
> I made a speed comparison between fsl-quadspi.c and Boris' 
> spi-fsl-qspi.c using a Micron MT25QL512 64MB NOR: [1]
> 
> It seems like the spi-mem-based driver is slower up to about 40%.

Ouch, not good! Are you sure the clk is running at the same freq (you
can check /sys/kernel/debug/clk/clk_summary)?

I guess the read path is optimized by some kind of pre-fetching (that's
particularly true for the 'read eraseblock' test where we see a 50%
gain with the old driver) which can't be done with the new driver (at
least in its current state). What I'm more surprised about is the
difference in the write speed. 

> 
> I had to remove USE_FSR, as FSR read/write doesn't work with both drivers:
> 
> -       { "n25q512ax3",  INFO(0x20ba20, 0, 64 * 1024, 1024, SECT_4K | 
> USE_FSR | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
> +       { "n25q512ax3",  INFO(0x20ba20, 0, 64 * 1024, 1024, SECT_4K | 
> SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
> 
> For the spi-mem driver I set spi-tx-bus-width = <1> to match with 
> fsl-quadspi.c (does not use quad write).
> My dts looks like this for both cases:
> 
> &qspi {
>      pinctrl-names = "default";
>      pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_qspi>;
>      status = "okay";
> 
>      flash0: n25q512ax3 at 0 {
>          #address-cells = <1>;
>          #size-cells = <1>;
>          compatible = "micron,n25q512ax3", "jedec,spi-nor";
>          spi-max-frequency = <108000000>;
>          spi-rx-bus-width = <4>;
>          spi-tx-bus-width = <1>;
>          reg = <0>;
>      };
> };
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Frieder
> 
> [1]: https://paste.ee/p/dc9KM



-- 
Boris Brezillon, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://bootlin.com