On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 07:49:41PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 03/30/2015 11:25 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:16:21PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 03/29/2015 08:03 AM, Martin Sperl wrote:
> >>> There have been rare cases where short (<200ns) chip-select > >>> switches with native CS have been observed during such > >>> operation, this is why this optimization is only enabled for > >>> GPIO-CS. > >> However, I'm not sure why this is in any way related to whether > >> the chip-select GPIO is valid. Surely we always want to do this? > >> How does the mechanism used to control chip selects influence > >> whether we want to pre-fill the FIFO? > > I think both the comment and the commit message answer that > > question - something triggers spurious chip select changes? > I must admit I don't feel either the commit message or the comment > explain the situation. They certainly state that there are glitches in > the "native CS" case, but that doesn't *explain* them. It seems more > likely the under-filling the FIFO would cause periods where the FIFO > was empty which would be aout the only case I could naively think of > for the CS to be de-asserted. More investigation would be useful. Right, and I have to say I do suspect that the underlying thing is that the FIFO is underrunning, but as far as the optimization is concerned that's a separate thing. The reason this isn't enabled for native chip selects is that it's not working, the reason it's not working is something that should indeed probably be investigated.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
