On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 08:15, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com>
>
> The endianness of data exchange between tx and rx fifo is incorrect.
> Earlier bytes are supposed to show up on MSB and later bytes on LSB,
> ie: in big endian. The manual does not explicitly say this, but the
> U-Boot and Linux driver codes have a swap on the data transferred
> to tx fifo and from rx fifo.
>
> With this change, U-Boot read from / write to SPI flash tests pass.
>
> => sf test 1ff000 1000
> SPI flash test:
> 0 erase: 0 ticks, 4096000 KiB/s 32768.000 Mbps
> 1 check: 3 ticks, 1333 KiB/s 10.664 Mbps
> 2 write: 235 ticks, 17 KiB/s 0.136 Mbps
> 3 read: 2 ticks, 2000 KiB/s 16.000 Mbps
> Test passed
> 0 erase: 0 ticks, 4096000 KiB/s 32768.000 Mbps
> 1 check: 3 ticks, 1333 KiB/s 10.664 Mbps
> 2 write: 235 ticks, 17 KiB/s 0.136 Mbps
> 3 read: 2 ticks, 2000 KiB/s 16.000 Mbps
>
> Fixes: c906a3a01582 ("i.MX: Add the Freescale SPI Controller")
> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com>
>
> ---
>
> (no changes since v3)
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Simplify the tx fifo endianness handling
>
> hw/ssi/imx_spi.c | 7 ++-----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/ssi/imx_spi.c b/hw/ssi/imx_spi.c
> index 47c8a0f572..b5124a6426 100644
> --- a/hw/ssi/imx_spi.c
> +++ b/hw/ssi/imx_spi.c
> @@ -171,7 +171,6 @@ static void imx_spi_flush_txfifo(IMXSPIState *s)
>
> while (!fifo32_is_empty(&s->tx_fifo)) {
> int tx_burst = 0;
> - int index = 0;
>
> if (s->burst_length <= 0) {
> s->burst_length = imx_spi_burst_length(s);
> @@ -192,7 +191,7 @@ static void imx_spi_flush_txfifo(IMXSPIState *s)
> rx = 0;
>
> while (tx_burst > 0) {
> - uint8_t byte = tx & 0xff;
> + uint8_t byte = tx >> (tx_burst - 8);
>
> DPRINTF("writing 0x%02x\n", (uint32_t)byte);
>
> @@ -201,13 +200,11 @@ static void imx_spi_flush_txfifo(IMXSPIState *s)
>
> DPRINTF("0x%02x read\n", (uint32_t)byte);
>
> - tx = tx >> 8;
> - rx |= (byte << (index * 8));
> + rx = (rx << 8) | byte;
>
> /* Remove 8 bits from the actual burst */
> tx_burst -= 8;
> s->burst_length -= 8;
> - index++;
> }
This version of the loop definitely looks a lot neater. However,
looking at the code I don't think there's anything that forces the
guest to set a burst length that's a multiple of 8, so you need
to handle that somehow. Otherwise on the last time through the
loop (tx_burst - 8) can be negative, which is undefined behaviour
when you try to shift by it.
I think just rounding tx_burst up to a multiple of 8 before
the start of the loop would do the right thing ?
thanks
-- PMM
