Hi Daniel,
On 24.07.20 15:56, Daniel Schwierzeck wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 23.07.2020, 12:17 +0200 schrieb Stefan Roese:
From: Suneel Garapati <[email protected]>
Adds support for SPI controllers found on Octeon II/III and Octeon TX
TX2 SoC platforms.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Williams <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Suneel Garapati <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Schwierzeck <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron Williams <[email protected]>
Cc: Chandrakala Chavva <[email protected]>
Cc: Jagan Teki <[email protected]>
<snip>
+static const struct dm_spi_ops octeon_spi_ops = {
+ .claim_bus = octeon_spi_claim_bus,
+ .release_bus = octeon_spi_release_bus,
+ .set_speed = octeon_spi_set_speed,
+ .set_mode = octeon_spi_set_mode,
+ .xfer = octeon_spi_xfer,
+};
+
+static const struct dm_spi_ops octeontx2_spi_ops = {
+ .claim_bus = octeon_spi_claim_bus,
+ .release_bus = octeon_spi_release_bus,
+ .set_speed = octeon_spi_set_speed,
+ .set_mode = octeon_spi_set_mode,
+ .xfer = octeontx2_spi_xfer,
+ .mem_ops = &octeontx2_spi_mem_ops,
+};
+
+static int octeon_spi_probe(struct udevice *dev)
+{
+ struct octeon_spi *priv = dev_get_priv(dev);
+ const struct octeon_spi_data *data;
+ int ret;
+
+ data = (const struct octeon_spi_data *)dev_get_driver_data(dev);
+ if (data->probe == PROBE_PCI) {
+ pci_dev_t bdf = dm_pci_get_bdf(dev);
+
+ debug("SPI PCI device: %x\n", bdf);
+ priv->base = dm_pci_map_bar(dev, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0,
+ PCI_REGION_MEM);
+ } else {
+ priv->base = dev_remap_addr(dev);
+ }
+
+ priv->base += data->reg_offs;
+
+ /* Octeon TX2 needs a different ops struct */
+ if (device_is_compatible(dev, "cavium,thunderx-spi")) {
+ /*
+ * "ops" is const and can't be written directly. So we need
+ * to write the Octeon TX2 ops value using this trick
+ */
+ writeq((u64)&octeontx2_spi_ops, (void *)&dev->driver->ops);
+ }
can't you simply add a xfer() function pointer to "struct
octeon_spi_data" and assign the according xfer function to it? Then
in octeon_spi_xfer() you can simply call that function pointer. With
this you only need one instance of "struct dm_spi_ops" and don't need
this ugly hack ;)
Unfortuantely its not that easy, as the Octeon TX2 ops struct also has
a " mem_ops" member, which the driver does not support for the other
Octeon models. I could clear this "mem_ops" member in the non Octeon
TX2 case, which is a bit better than the 2nd ops struct. But its still
not really elegent.
Or do you have some other idea on how to implement this in a "better
way"?
Thanks,
Stefan
