t1040 IFC flash driver Extended Chip Select

[Daniel Walker]

On 07/11/2016 09:55 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 07/11/2016 11:36 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>> On 07/08/2016 06:12 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2016 06:48 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>>>> On 07/07/2016 03:37 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>>> On 07/07/2016 05:01 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/07/2016 02:59 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/07/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/07/2016 02:23 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I suspect that add the usage of cspr_ext into the driver would fix the
>>>>>>>>> issue we have. It reads like you would find that acceptable ?
>>>>>>>>> What specifically is the problem you're having?  Is it that CSPR_EXT is
>>>>>>>>> not getting written to, and thus the device does not appear at the
>>>>>>>>> address that it should?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or is the driver matching incorrectly?  The only way the driver's lack
>>>>>>>>> of using CSPR_EXT to match would be a problem would be if you have
>>>>>>>>> multiple chipselects with the same address in the lower 32 bits, and
>>>>>>>>> only CSPR_EXT distinguishing them.  Since you proposed a device tree
>>>>>>>>> binding that assumes all devices have the same CSPR_EXT, I doubt that's
>>>>>>>>> the case, so I doubt adding CSPR_EXT matching to the driver will solve
>>>>>>>>> your problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Scott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't do the debug on this. From my perspective it's either flash
>>>>>>>> works, or it doesn't work. We need the code below for it to work,
>>>>>>> Adding CSPR_EXT matching to the driver will not accomplish the same
>>>>>>> thing as that code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So from u-boot perspective, the values in the device tree under "ranges"
>>>>>> or parts of it, are place into the cspr and cspr_ext ? Is that how it's
>>>>>> suppose to work ?
>>>>> U-Boot writes values that are hardcoded in the board config header.
>>>>> These values (as well as the area covered by the IFC LAW) need to match
>>>>> the address in the device tree, but U-Boot doesn't get them from the
>>>>> device tree.
>>>>>
>>>> I was suggesting the values it writes are the same as the ones inside
>>>> the device tree. So we could have both csrp and csrp_ext written from
>>>> the driver and the values would
>>>> come from the ranges property.
>>> There's more to CSPR than just the address.  The driver should either be
>>> able to assume that all of CSPR/CSOR has been correctly initialized, or
>>> it should assume none of that has been initialized -- which again,
>>> requires the attribute information to be in the device tree.  If you're
>>> doing something in between, then that's a board quirk rather than a
>>> general solution.
>>>
>>> -Scott
>>>
>> It would seems like a good idea to add it then. I think it can be piece
>> mail, rather than all or nothing tho. How difficult is adding the other
>> part to the driver , v.s. just the cspr_ext ?
> Writing only cspr_ext is a hack to work around a bug and should not be
> disguised as a "piecemeal" implementation of something different.
>
> -Scott

Ok .. How hard is it to do all the stuff your asking for ?

Daniel