Subject: [PATCH 0/4] mtd: spi-nor: add a new framework for SPI NOR

From: [email-masked] (Huang Shijie)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:06:55 +0800

Hi Angus:
   thanks for the long suggestion. it's very useful.

Let's push the spi nor framework.:)
> Hi Huang Shijie,
>
> On 11/27/2013 04:32 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
>> + Lee Jones, others
>>
>> I'd like to keep a similar CC list for the various conversations going
>> on about SPI NOR frameworks.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 02:32:51PM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
>>> 1.) Why add a new framework for SPI NOR?
>>>    The SPI-NOR controller such as Freescale's Quadspi controller is working
>>>    in a different way from the SPI bus. It should knows the NOR commands to
>>>    find the right LUT sequence. Unfortunately, the current code can not meet
>>>    this requirement.
> I fully support your argument for introducing a new framework to support Serial
> Flash controllers.  Reiterating my previous comment:
>
> "The kernel offers many examples of others who have struggled with the same
> problem.  Some have chosen to write self-contained drivers (e.g.
> drivers/mtd/devices/spear_smi.c and drivers/mtd/devices/sst251.c) duplicating
> much of m25p80.c, while others have attempted to squeeze into the SPI framework
> (e.g. drivers/spi/spi-tegra20-sflash.c and drivers/spi/spi-falcon.c), relying on
> fragile heuristics to recreate the semantics of m25p80 that is lost over the ,
> current circumstances SPI framework ."
>
> However, having now been through your proposed framework, it would not seem to
> provide a generally applicable solution.  Indeed, other than making the Serial
> Flash commands and the device table available, it is not obvious how it improves
> the situation for your own specific controller either; the
> read/write/read_reg/write_reg callbacks do not offer a great deal more than
> spi_read_then_write().  (Perhaps all will become clear when you submit the
> fsl-quadspi driver.)

> As I see it, the main problem with the current support is that dedicated Serial
> Flash Controllers require a level of semantics that cannot be conveyed over the
> generic SPI framework.  With this in mind, I would start by defining something
> along the lines of a "Serial Flash transfer".  Some initial ramblings of my mind:
>
> /**
>   * struct spi_nor_xfer_cfg - Structure for defining a Serial Flash transfer
>   * @wren:		command for "Write Enable", or 0x00 for not required
why this wren is needed?
>   * @cmd:		command for operation
>   * @cmd_pins:		number of pins to send @cmd (1, 2, 4)
>   * @addr:		address for operation
>   * @addr_pins:		number of pins to send @addr (1, 2, 4)
>   * @addr_width: 	number of address bytes (3,4, or 0 for address not required)
this field has been in the spi_nor{} , it should be a fixed value.
so i think we do not need this argument.
>   * @mode:		mode data
>   * @mode_pins:		number of pins to send @mode (1, 2, 4)
>   * @mode_cycles:	number of mode cycles (0 for mode not required)
>   * @dummy_cycles:	number of dummy cycles (0 for dummy not required)
>   */
> struct spi_nor_xfer_cfg {
> 	uint8_t		wren;
> 	uint8_t		cmd;
> 	int		cmd_pins;
> 	uint32_t	addr;
> 	int		addr_pins;
> 	int		addr_width;
> 	uint32_t	mode;
> 	int		mode_pins;
> 	int		mode_cycles;
> 	int		dummy_cycles;
> };
>
> We could then build up layers of functionality, based on two fundamental primitives:
>
> 	int (*read_xfer)(struct spi_nor_info *info,
> 			 struct spi_nor_xfer_cfg *cfg,
> 			 uint8_t *buf, size_t len);
> 	
> 	int (*write_xfer)(struct spi_nor_info *info,
> 			  struct spi_nor_xfer_cfg *cfg,
> 			  uint8_t *buf, size_t len);
> 	
> Default implementations for standard operations could follow:
>
> 	int (*read_reg)(struct spi_nor_info *info,
> 			uint8_t cmd, uint8_t *reg, int len);
> 	int (*write_reg)(struct spi_nor_info *info,
> 			 uint8_t cmd, uint8_t *reg, int len,
> 			 int wren, int wtr);
>
> 	int (*readid)(struct spi_nor_info *info, uint8_t *readid);
> 	int (*wait_till_ready)(struct spi_nor_info *info);

currently, we poll the status register.
why this hook is needed?

> 	
> 	int (*read)(struct spi_nor_info *info, uint8_t buf, off_t offs, size_t len);
> 	int (*write)(struct spi_nor_info *info, off_t offs, size_t len);
> 	int (*erase_sector)(struct spi_nor_info *info, off_t offs);
I also confused at this hook.

if we need erase_sector, do we still need the erase_chip()?

> Each driver would be required to implement read_xfer() and write_xfer(), and
> then free to either use the default implementations, or override with
> driver-optimised implementations.
>
> In the case of a pure SPI Controller, read_xfer() and write_xfer() would simply
> flatten to spi_messages.  The key benefit is that dedicated Serial Flash
> Controllers would be able to take advantage of the richer semantics offered by
> the 'spi_nor_xfer_cfg' data.
>
> I would also expect the spi-nor framework to provide the following services,
> applicable to all Serial Flash drivers:
>
> 	- determine devices properties at runtime, based on the READID data (and
> perhaps SFDP, if and when it matures!).  This should include supported opcodes
> (e.g. READ_1_1_4, READ_1_4_4, READ4B_1_1_4...), operating frequencies, mode and
> dummy requirements, means of setting Quad Enable, entering/exiting 4-byte
> addressing etc.
>
> 	- provide optimal read, write and erase configurations, based on the combined
> capabilities of the Serial Flash device and the H/W Controller.
>
> 	- device specific configuration (e.g. setting QE, unlock BPx bits, DYB unlocking).
>
Does Jones have any opinion about this?

thanks
Huang Shijie