On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Daniel Schwierzeck <daniel.schwierz...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you use native CS, you should use the same numbering as in the > datasheet: > > &spi { > ... > spi-nor@4 { > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"; > reg = <4>; > spi-max-frequency = <25000000>; > }; > }; > > If you use GPIO CS, you can ignore the native CS numbering and choose > your own and you can also start with 0: > > &spi { > ... > cs-gpios = <&gpio 10 1>; > > spi-nor@0 { > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"; > reg = <0>; > spi-max-frequency = <25000000>; > }; > }; > > If you use native CS 4, you have to manipulate bits 3 and 11 in the > GPOCON and FGPO registers. Thus you have to keep the (cs - 1) > translation. Thanks for the explanation. I think what confused me is that I thought of mixing GPIO-based CS and HW CS. But as far as I can see that is not supported: either use GPIOs or HW for CS. Thus I went ahead and updated the board .dts to be +1 compared to their old value and reverted my changes to your patch.
>> While reviewing my changes I may have found a small problem with your >> driver: >> You don't have a separate "lantiq,spi-xrx100" OF-match. I think you >> should add one with the same settings as for the other xrx-SoCs. >> If you look at DGN3500.dtsi [2] you'll see that it's an ARX100 board >> using spi_cs4. > > that's because I couldn't test it. But according to the datasheet, > xRX100 also supports six native CS lines. I added an of_device_id for "lantiq,spi-xrx100". Unfortunately I also don't have xRX100 hardware which uses any SPI device, thus I can only compile-test it. So compared to your patch the final list of changes is: - INIT_COMPLETION -> reinit_completion - use clk_get_fpi() - of_device_id for "lantiq,spi-xrx100" I only have three small questions left: - The "spi_frm" interrupt is currently unused - is that on purpose? - I went ahead and added multiple "compatible" strings to the soc.dtsi, for example: compatible = "lantiq,spi-ase", "lantiq,spi-xway"; - do you see any problems with that? Please let me know if you have more feedback - otherwise I'll do the final round of tests and send the patches later. PS: My git tree is contains the latest set of changes: [0] Martin [0] https://github.com/xdarklight/openwrt/commits/lantiq-spi-driver-daniel-v3 _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel