[PATCH 0/4] spi-mem: Allow specifying the byte order in DTR mode

[Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com]

On 2/22/22 16:27, Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Am 2022-02-22 15:23, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com:
>> On 2/22/22 16:13, Michael Walle wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>>> the content is safe
>>>
>>> Am 2022-02-22 14:54, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com:
>>>> On 2/21/22 09:44, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>>>>> know
>>>>> the content is safe
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 2022-02-18 15:58, schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
>>>>>> Fortunately there are controllers
>>>>>> that can swap back the bytes at runtime, fixing the endiannesses.
>>>>>> Provide
>>>>>> a way for the upper layers to specify the byte order in DTR mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any patches for the atmel-quadspi yet? What happens if
>>>>
>>>> not public, but will publish them these days.
>>>>
>>>>> the controller doesn't support it? Will there be a software
>>>>> fallback?
>>>>
>>>> no need for a fallback, the controller can ignore
>>>> op->data.dtr_bswap16
>>>> if
>>>> it can't swap bytes.
>>>
>>> I don't understand. If the controller doesn't swap the 16bit values,
>>> you will read the wrong content, no?
>>>
>>
>> In linux no, because macronix swaps bytes on a 2 byte boundary both on
>> reads and on page program. The problem is when you mix 8D-8D-8D mode
>> and
>> 1-1-1 mode along the boot stages. Let's assume you write all boot
>> binaries
>> in 1-1-1 mode. When reaching u-boot if you enable 8D-8D-8D mode, when
>> u-boot
>> will try to get the kernel it will fail, as the flash swaps the bytes
>> compared
>> to what was written with 1-1-1 mode. You write D0 D1 D2 D3 in 1-1-1
>> mode and
>> when reaching u-boot you will read D1 D0 D3 D2 and it will mess the
>> kernel image.
> 
> But you have to consider also 3rd parties, like an external programmer
> or

Why? If you use the same mode when reading and writing, everything is fine.
I'm not sure what's your suggestion here.

> another OS. So, there has to be *one correct* way of writing/reading
> these
> bytes.
>