From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B072FC433EF for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 07:28:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B9420020 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 07:28:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 72B9420020 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756350AbeFSH2r (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 03:28:47 -0400 Received: from mail.bootlin.com ([62.4.15.54]:60165 "EHLO mail.bootlin.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755868AbeFSH2p (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 03:28:45 -0400 Received: by mail.bootlin.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id C66E120862; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:28:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bbrezillon (AAubervilliers-681-1-50-153.w90-88.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.88.168.153]) by mail.bootlin.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C62220850; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:28:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:28:32 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Yogesh Narayan Gaur , "marek.vasut@gmail.com" , Frieder Schrempf , "broonie@kernel.org" Cc: Fabio Estevam , David Wolfe , "dwmw2@infradead.org" , "richard@nod.at" , Prabhakar Kushwaha , Han Xu , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-spi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , "miquel.raynal@bootlin.com" , "computersforpeace@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] spi: Add a driver for the Freescale/NXP QuadSPI controller Message-ID: <20180619092832.3b6c8f22@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: References: <1527686082-15142-1-git-send-email-frieder.schrempf@exceet.de> <20180611094616.5c8f82cf@bbrezillon> <20180611121618.40f4b609@bbrezillon> <20180612091328.67734adb@bbrezillon> <20180615145019.734f23a9@bbrezillon> <20180615155541.4f43e9bb@bbrezillon> <20180618211536.0bf44f55@bbrezillon> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Yogesh, Could you please use a mailer that is quoting things correctly. I have a hard time differentiating your replies from mine. On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 07:10:37 +0000 Yogesh Narayan Gaur wrote: > Let us take below layout of memory address space map. > QuadSPI Controller can access range from 0x2000_0000 - 0x2FFF_FFFF i.e. 256 MB address space reserved and it is having 4 slave devices connected. > These slave devices[of size 64MB, 64MB, 32MB and 64MB ] are connected at below address > 0x2000_0000, 0x2400_0000, 0x2A00_0000, 0x2C00_0000 > i.e. there is gap of 32MB from 0x2800_0000 to 0x29FF_FFFF. Okay, I'm fine with pre-reserving 32MB per chip select. > > As per my understanding of the controller, flash XX top address, register should have below values: > QUADSPI_SFA1AD - 0x0 > QUADSPI_SFA2AD - 0x400_0000 > QUADSPI_SFB1AD - 0xA00_0000 > QUADSPI_SFB2AD - 0xC00_0000 > And Register QUADSPI_SFAR should point to the range for the flash in which operation is happening. Wait, I thought it was supposed to be an absolute address, not one relative to the 0x20000000 offset. > > Please check Table10-32, page 1657, in [1] for more details on flash address assignment. Yes, I still don't see where it says that having one of the range with a zero size is forbidden, or anything mentioning a required alignment. > > But say if I assign address to register QUADSPI_SFA2AD as "0 + 2 * ->ahb_buf_size" then this address value is not correct as per the value range explained in above mentioned table. Why? If the SFA1AD is set to zero, that should not, right?