[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] SPI: mxc_spi: delay initialisation until claim bus
Jagan Teki
jagannadh.teki at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 20:42:03 CEST 2014
On 24 September 2014 23:53, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 September 2014 14:16, Markus Niebel <list-09_u-boot at tqsc.de> wrote:
>> From: Markus Niebel <Markus.Niebel at tq-group.com>
>>
>> it is not correct to init for a specific slave in spi_setup_slave.
>> instead buffer the values and delay init until spi_claim_bus.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Niebel <Markus.Niebel at tq-group.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c b/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c
>> index 6a05d15..c741738 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c
>> @@ -43,6 +43,8 @@ struct mxc_spi_slave {
>> #endif
>> int gpio;
>> int ss_pol;
>> + unsigned int max_hz;
>> + unsigned int mode;
>> };
>>
>> static inline struct mxc_spi_slave *to_mxc_spi_slave(struct spi_slave *slave)
>> @@ -77,12 +79,13 @@ u32 get_cspi_div(u32 div)
>> }
>>
>> #ifdef MXC_CSPI
>> -static s32 spi_cfg_mxc(struct mxc_spi_slave *mxcs, unsigned int cs,
>> - unsigned int max_hz, unsigned int mode)
>> +static s32 spi_cfg_mxc(struct mxc_spi_slave *mxcs, unsigned int cs)
>> {
>> unsigned int ctrl_reg;
>> u32 clk_src;
>> u32 div;
>> + unsigned int max_hz = mxcs->max_hz;
>> + unsigned int mode = mxcs->mode;
>>
>> clk_src = mxc_get_clock(MXC_CSPI_CLK);
>>
>> @@ -114,19 +117,15 @@ static s32 spi_cfg_mxc(struct mxc_spi_slave *mxcs, unsigned int cs,
>> #endif
>>
>> #ifdef MXC_ECSPI
>> -static s32 spi_cfg_mxc(struct mxc_spi_slave *mxcs, unsigned int cs,
>> - unsigned int max_hz, unsigned int mode)
>> +static s32 spi_cfg_mxc(struct mxc_spi_slave *mxcs, unsigned int cs)
>> {
>> u32 clk_src = mxc_get_clock(MXC_CSPI_CLK);
>> s32 reg_ctrl, reg_config;
>> u32 ss_pol = 0, sclkpol = 0, sclkpha = 0, sclkctl = 0;
>> u32 pre_div = 0, post_div = 0;
>> struct cspi_regs *regs = (struct cspi_regs *)mxcs->base;
>> -
>> - if (max_hz == 0) {
>> - printf("Error: desired clock is 0\n");
>> - return -1;
>> - }
>> + unsigned int max_hz = mxcs->max_hz;
>> + unsigned int mode = mxcs->mode;
>>
>> /*
>> * Reset SPI and set all CSs to master mode, if toggling
>> @@ -404,6 +403,11 @@ struct spi_slave *spi_setup_slave(unsigned int bus, unsigned int cs,
>> if (bus >= ARRAY_SIZE(spi_bases))
>> return NULL;
>>
>> + if (max_hz == 0) {
>> + printf("Error: desired clock is 0\n");
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> +
>> mxcs = spi_alloc_slave(struct mxc_spi_slave, bus, cs);
>> if (!mxcs) {
>> puts("mxc_spi: SPI Slave not allocated !\n");
>> @@ -421,13 +425,9 @@ struct spi_slave *spi_setup_slave(unsigned int bus, unsigned int cs,
>> cs = ret;
>>
>> mxcs->base = spi_bases[bus];
>> + mxcs->max_hz = max_hz;
>> + mxcs->mode = mode;
>>
>> - ret = spi_cfg_mxc(mxcs, cs, max_hz, mode);
>> - if (ret) {
>> - printf("mxc_spi: cannot setup SPI controller\n");
>> - free(mxcs);
>> - return NULL;
>> - }
>> return &mxcs->slave;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -440,12 +440,17 @@ void spi_free_slave(struct spi_slave *slave)
>>
>> int spi_claim_bus(struct spi_slave *slave)
>> {
>> + int ret;
>> struct mxc_spi_slave *mxcs = to_mxc_spi_slave(slave);
>> struct cspi_regs *regs = (struct cspi_regs *)mxcs->base;
>>
>> reg_write(®s->rxdata, 1);
>> udelay(1);
>> - reg_write(®s->ctrl, mxcs->ctrl_reg);
>> + ret = spi_cfg_mxc(mxcs, slave->cs);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + printf("mxc_spi: cannot setup SPI controller\n");
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> reg_write(®s->period, MXC_CSPIPERIOD_32KHZ);
>> reg_write(®s->intr, 0);
>>
>> --
>> 2.1.0
>>
>
> In fact this driver is using spi_cfg_mxc() for configuring SPI
> clock,polarities and frequency
> in spi_setup_slave() time, but usually spi_setup_slave() will require
> only basic controller reg
> initialization. So while in spi_claim_bus() clock, polarities and
> frequencies will handle.
>
> Please think on that direction and will be good if you fix those and
> send the patches for next time.
I think you did the same, what I mentioned above, could you rebase this
patch on master, I have seen patch failed error while applying.
thanks!
--
Jagan.
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list