On 12/06/2016 11:25 AM, Phil Edworthy wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 05 December 2016 13:31, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 12/05/2016 11:46 AM, Phil Edworthy wrote: >>> On 05 December 2016 10:42, Jagan Teki wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Phil Edworthy >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On 05 December 2016 10:26, Jagan Teki wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Phil Edworthy >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> On 02 December 2016 14:23, Jagan Teki wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Phil Edworthy >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Introduce a new DT property to specify whether the QSPI Controller >>>>>>>>> samples the data on a rising edge. The default is falling edge. >>>>>>>>> Some versions of the QSPI Controller do not implement this bit, in >>>>>>>>> which case the property should be omitted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Phil Edworthy <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> v3: >>>>>>>>> - Patch split so this one only has code related to the subject. >>>>>>>>> - Commit message updated. >>>>>>>>> v2: >>>>>>>>> - Change name of DT prop and provide details of what it does. >>>>>>>>> Whilst at it, move the code to read the "sram-size" property >>>>>>>>> into the other code that reads properties from the node, rather >>>>>>>>> than the SF subnode. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also change the code to use a bool for the bypass arg. >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> doc/device-tree-bindings/spi/spi-cadence.txt | 2 ++ >>>>>>>>> drivers/spi/cadence_qspi.c | 10 +++++++--- >>>>>>>>> drivers/spi/cadence_qspi.h | 3 ++- >>>>>>>>> drivers/spi/cadence_qspi_apb.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/doc/device-tree-bindings/spi/spi-cadence.txt >>>>>>>>> b/doc/device- >>>> tree- >>>>>>>> bindings/spi/spi-cadence.txt >>>>>>>>> index c1e2233..94c800b 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/doc/device-tree-bindings/spi/spi-cadence.txt >>>>>>>>> +++ b/doc/device-tree-bindings/spi/spi-cadence.txt >>>>>>>>> @@ -26,3 +26,5 @@ connected flash properties >>>>>>>>> select (n_ss_out). >>>>>>>>> - tslch-ns : Delay in master reference clocks between >>>>>>>>> setting >>>>>>>>> n_ss_out low and first bit transfer >>>>>>>>> +- sample-edge-rising : Data outputs from flash memory will be >> sampled >>>> on >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> + rising edge. Default is falling edge. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Code look reasonable, but how Linux handling this with the same dt >>>>>>>> property, any idea? I couldn't find it either. >>>>>>> The Linux driver does not yet have this property. Is there a policy to >>>>>>> add >> new >>>>>>> props to Linux first? >>>>>> >>>>>> If the same/equal code used in Linux better to have the same property >>>>>> instead of another name used in U-boot? >>>>> Of course, but I cannot see this in Linux: >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux- >>>> next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-cadence.txt >>>> >>>> Yeah, I saw this. Do you have any idea how Linux handling this sample edge? >>> The same way U-Boot currently handles it, i.e. it does nothing with this. >> Intel/Altera >>> (Chin Liang) said that they do not have this bit in their version of the >>> Cadence >> QSPI >>> Controller. >>> >>> We are using a later version that has had this bit added. >> >> You were looking at the wrong bindings: >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux- >> next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/cadence-quadspi.txt > Thanks for pointing that out! > >> but yes, Linux does not do support the data edge toggling. I think there >> was another QSPI patch in Linux which tried adding such property, so >> check linux-mtd for it. Generic one would be great. > I had a search around, but couldn't find anything.
Look for negative_edge here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg153582.html >> And no, there is no policy for pushing new props to linux first. New DT >> props should ideally get approved via devicetree@vger though, but that's >> about it. Also, while I tried backporting the Linux CQSPI driver to >> U-Boot, but unfortunately, it turned out to be extremely difficult due >> significant differences between the Linux and U-Boot SPI NOR framework. > OK, thanks for the information. > > Thanks > Phil > -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
