[PATCH 2/3] spi: mxic: patch for octal DTR mode support

[Miquel Raynal]

Hello,

zhengxunli <zhengxunli at mxic.com.tw> wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:13:37
+0800:

> Driver patch for octal 8D-8D-8D mode support.
> 
> Signed-off-by: zhengxunli <zhengxunli at mxic.com.tw>
> ---
>  drivers/spi/spi-mxic.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mxic.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mxic.c
> index 96b4182..821328a 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mxic.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mxic.c
> @@ -335,8 +335,8 @@ static int mxic_spi_data_xfer(struct mxic_spi *mxic, const void *txbuf,
>  static bool mxic_spi_mem_supports_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
>  				     const struct spi_mem_op *op)
>  {
> -	if (op->data.buswidth > 4 || op->addr.buswidth > 4 ||
> -	    op->dummy.buswidth > 4 || op->cmd.buswidth > 4)
> +	if (op->data.buswidth > 8 || op->addr.buswidth > 8 ||
> +	    op->dummy.buswidth > 8 || op->cmd.buswidth > 8)
>  		return false;
>  
>  	if (op->data.nbytes && op->dummy.nbytes &&
> @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ static bool mxic_spi_mem_supports_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
>  	if (op->addr.nbytes > 7)
>  		return false;
>  
> -	return spi_mem_default_supports_op(mem, op);
> +	return true;

Does not seem correct. Why would you drop this check?

>  }
>  
>  static int mxic_spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
> @@ -355,14 +355,15 @@ static int mxic_spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
>  	struct mxic_spi *mxic = spi_master_get_devdata(mem->spi->master);
>  	int nio = 1, i, ret;
>  	u32 ss_ctrl;
> -	u8 addr[8];
> -	u8 opcode = op->cmd.opcode;
> +	u8 addr[8], cmd[2];
>  
>  	ret = mxic_spi_set_freq(mxic, mem->spi->max_speed_hz);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	if (mem->spi->mode & (SPI_TX_QUAD | SPI_RX_QUAD))
> +	if (mem->spi->mode & (SPI_TX_OCTAL | SPI_RX_OCTAL))
> +		nio = 8;
> +	else if (mem->spi->mode & (SPI_TX_QUAD | SPI_RX_QUAD))
>  		nio = 4;
>  	else if (mem->spi->mode & (SPI_TX_DUAL | SPI_RX_DUAL))
>  		nio = 2;
> @@ -374,19 +375,25 @@ static int mxic_spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
>  	       mxic->regs + HC_CFG);
>  	writel(HC_EN_BIT, mxic->regs + HC_EN);
>  
> -	ss_ctrl = OP_CMD_BYTES(1) | OP_CMD_BUSW(fls(op->cmd.buswidth) - 1);
> +	ss_ctrl = OP_CMD_BYTES(op->cmd.nbytes) |
> +		  OP_CMD_BUSW(fls(op->cmd.buswidth) - 1) |
> +		  (op->cmd.dtr ? OP_CMD_DDR : 0);
>  
>  	if (op->addr.nbytes)
>  		ss_ctrl |= OP_ADDR_BYTES(op->addr.nbytes) |
> -			   OP_ADDR_BUSW(fls(op->addr.buswidth) - 1);
> +			   OP_ADDR_BUSW(fls(op->addr.buswidth) - 1) |
> +			   (op->addr.dtr ? OP_ADDR_DDR : 0);
>  
>  	if (op->dummy.nbytes)
>  		ss_ctrl |= OP_DUMMY_CYC(op->dummy.nbytes);
>  
>  	if (op->data.nbytes) {
> -		ss_ctrl |= OP_DATA_BUSW(fls(op->data.buswidth) - 1);
> +		ss_ctrl |= OP_DATA_BUSW(fls(op->data.buswidth) - 1) |
> +			   (op->data.dtr ? OP_DATA_DDR : 0);
>  		if (op->data.dir == SPI_MEM_DATA_IN)
>  			ss_ctrl |= OP_READ;
> +			if (op->data.dtr)
> +				ss_ctrl |= OP_DQS_EN;
>  	}
>  
>  	writel(ss_ctrl, mxic->regs + SS_CTRL(mem->spi->chip_select));
> @@ -394,7 +401,10 @@ static int mxic_spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
>  	writel(readl(mxic->regs + HC_CFG) | HC_CFG_MAN_CS_ASSERT,
>  	       mxic->regs + HC_CFG);
>  
> -	ret = mxic_spi_data_xfer(mxic, &opcode, NULL, 1);
> +	for (i = 0; i < op->cmd.nbytes; i++)

Can we add a check in mxic_spi_mem_check_op to ensure nbytes is never >
2 ?

> +		cmd[i] = op->cmd.opcode >> (8 * (op->cmd.nbytes - i - 1));
> +
> +	ret = mxic_spi_data_xfer(mxic, cmd, NULL, op->cmd.nbytes);
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto out;
>  
> @@ -567,7 +577,8 @@ static int mxic_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	master->bits_per_word_mask = SPI_BPW_MASK(8);
>  	master->mode_bits = SPI_CPOL | SPI_CPHA |
>  			SPI_RX_DUAL | SPI_TX_DUAL |
> -			SPI_RX_QUAD | SPI_TX_QUAD;
> +			SPI_RX_QUAD | SPI_TX_QUAD |
> +			SPI_RX_OCTAL | SPI_TX_OCTAL;
>  
>  	mxic_spi_hw_init(mxic);
>  

Otherwise looks fine.

Thanks,
Miquèl