Portia Stephens <[email protected]> 于2026年8月21日周五 12:53写道：
>
>
>
> On 21/8/2026 1:56 PM, Kangjie Huang wrote:
> > Portia Stephens <[email protected]> 于2026年8月21日周五 09:11写道：
> >>
> >> I don't think this will work for frame != 8-bit with the m25p80 flash
> >> model used by k230. ssi_transfer() takes a 32-bit value but it then
> >> calls m25p80_transfer8() which will just transfer the bottom 8-bits and
> >> drop the rest.
> >>
> >> I don't know if this is an issue with your code or with the ssi_transfer
> >> function though. It seems like ssi_transfer intends to accept 32-bit
> >> values.
> >>
> > Hi Portia,
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
> >
> > On SPI_FRF: you are right, the explicit clearing in dw_ssi_write() is
> > redundant because dw_ssi_write_masked() already drops the bits that are
> > not in the writable mask. I will remove it and add a LOG_UNIMP warning
> > when a non-zero SPI_FRF value is written.
> >
> > On the frame width: ssi_transfer() takes a uint32_t word. The issue is
> > that the DWC model uses CTRLR0.DFS (4..32 bits) to define each
> > transmitted frame, while SPI NOR is an 8-bit consumer, so the two are
> > aligned only when DFS is 8. The K230 SDK SPI-NOR paths use 8-bit
> > frames, so this case is not exposed by the current K230 use case.
> > Maybe either add a DFS != 8 restriction with a LOG_UNIMP warning, or
> > have the DWC model split byte-aligned 16/24/32-bit frames into
> > multiple 8-bit ssi_transfer() calls？
>
>
> I think either option is fine. If there isn't anything testing the
> variable frame width it might make sense to just restrict the width to
> what is tested.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kangjie
HI Portia
ok ,thanks a lot
Thanks,
Kangjie
