[PATCH 2/2] fsl_ifc: Support all 8 IFC chip selects

[Prabhakar Kushwaha]

Sorry Scott for late reply,

Please find my reply in-lined


On 8/21/2014 4:51 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-08-20 at 09:05 +0530, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
>> On 8/20/2014 5:38 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 16:07 -0500, Aaron Sierra wrote:
>>>> Freescale's QorIQ T Series processors support 8 IFC chip selects
>>>> within a memory map backward compatible with previous P Series
>>>> processors which supported only 4 chip selects.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Sierra <asierra at xes-inc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    include/linux/fsl_ifc.h | 10 +++++-----
>>>>    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/fsl_ifc.h b/include/linux/fsl_ifc.h
>>>> index 84d60cb..62762ff 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/fsl_ifc.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/fsl_ifc.h
>>>> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
>>>>    #include <linux/of_platform.h>
>>>>    #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>>    
>>>> -#define FSL_IFC_BANK_COUNT 4
>>>> +#define FSL_IFC_BANK_COUNT 8
>>> First please modify fsl_ifc_nand.c to limit itself to the number of
>>> banks it dynamically determines are present based on the IFC version.
>>>
>>>
>> Number of available bank/chip select are defined by SoC and it is
>> independent of SoC.
> Do you mean defined by the SoC and independent of the IFC version?

IFC v 1.0.0 supports 4 Chip Select.
IFC v 1.1.0 onwards, IFC supports 8 chip select.

But SoC finally defines number of chip select coming out of SoC. Like 
LS1021A with IFC ver 1.4.0 have only 7 Chip Select.

>> It should be fix in following way
>>
>> Option 1:
>> u-boot:  fix device tree with number of available chip select. It may
>> require IFC binding change
>> Linux: Read device tree and determine the Chip Selects
> If we do this then it will need to be an optional property that defaults
> to the current assumption being made (4).

Yes, I agree with you.

> In the future we really ought to check whether there are integration
> parameters when coming up with the initial binding for a hardware
> block...

True.


>> Option 2:
>> Make it static because any way IFC NAND driver polls to
>> FSL_IFC_BANK_COUNT to know NAND flash chip select. This patch is doing same.
> I don't understand what you're saying here.  The driver does not know at
> compile time how many there are.  What this patch does is assume it's OK
> to access non-existent registers in the rare case that there's no match
> in the registers that exist.

in case of P1010, If we run loop for 8 times,
      we are accessing reserved memory, that's why it may work. In Ideal 
scenario, we should not access the reserved memory.


> Aaron tested this on P1010 and it seemed to work, though I'm not
> generally fond of relying on such things.
>
yes, I agree.

  If I conclude  ==>   We should go with option 1.  Am I correct?


Regards,
Prabhakar