[U-Boot] [PATCH v3] sf: Add auto detection of 4-byte mode (vs standard 3-byte mode)

[Rajat Srivastava <rajat.srivastava@nxp.com>]

Hi Stefan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Roese [mailto:sr at denx.de]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 12:45 PM
> To: Rajat Srivastava <rajat.srivastava@nxp.com>; jagan at openedev.com;
> simon.k.r.goldschmidt at gmail.com
> Cc: Ashish Kumar <ashish.kumar@nxp.com>; u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3] sf: Add auto detection of 4-byte mode (vs
> standard 3-byte mode)
> 
> Hi Rajat,
> 
> On 17.10.18 13:52, Rajat Srivastava wrote:
> > Hi Stefan
> >
> > Sorry for top-posting.
> >
> > Why can't we read SFDP parameters from flash and auto-detect
> > 3-byte/4-byte addressing mode?
> > Using address width information we can support both types of flash
> > i.e. flashes supporting 3-byte addressing mode as well as flashes
> > supporting 4-byte addressing mode.
> 
> Our flash supports 3- and 4-byte addressing mode. But this special
> chip is factory strapped to only support 4-byte mode, even though
> its device ID tells us that it should support also 3-byte mode.
> This current pretty simple patch enables the use of this flash
> with very limited code additions. It also helps others (Simon on
> SoCFPGA) with their issues regarding 3-byte vs 4-byte mode -
> especially in regard to the bootrom and its setup.

If you look into my patch, for the flashes that support both
3-byte and 4-byte addressing modes, the default addressing mode is set to
4-byte. In such case if the user wants to send a command in 3-byte mode
then he has to set a flag. So SFDP path will be able to handle the special
chip that is factory strapped to 4-byte addressing mode.

Code snippet from patch which handles 3-byte/4-byte/both addressing modes:
+ switch (bfpt.dwords[BFPT_DWORD(1)] & BFPT_DWORD1_ADDRESS_BYTES_MASK) {
+        case BFPT_DWORD1_ADDRESS_BYTES_3_ONLY: // flashes with 3-byte addressing
+                flash->addr_width = 3;
+                break;
+        case BFPT_DWORD1_ADDRESS_BYTES_3_OR_4: // flashes with both 3 or 4 byte
+                printf("SF: Flash defaults to 3-Byte mode; enters 4-Byte ");
+                printf("mode on command\n");
+                /*
+                 * By default, 4-byte addressing mode is set.
+                 * To enforce 3-byte addressing mode, set addrwd_3_in_use flag                                                                                             
+                 * in struct spi_flash for every command.
+                 */
+                flash->addr_width = 4;
+                break;
+         case BFPT_DWORD1_ADDRESS_BYTES_4_ONLY: // flashes with 4-byte addressing
+                flash->addr_width = 4;
+                break;

> 
> > I've floated a similar patch in U-boot that reads and parses SFDP
> > parameters from flash and auto-detects its addressing mode. It send
> > commands according to the address width it detects.
> > Please find the patch set at:
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatch
> work.ozlabs.org%2Fcover%2F985326%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Crajat.srivast
> ava%40nxp.com%7C56b81d26a6954324bebd08d637ee0c35%7C686ea1d3bc2b4
> c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636757892882342025&amp;sdata=M2aU
> WUxSn9wmlBlYj336%2Bay5rwOddG%2Br7Qn5kH%2Bf1uw%3D&amp;reserved=
> 0
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatch
> work.ozlabs.org%2Fpatch%2F985327%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Crajat.srivast
> ava%40nxp.com%7C56b81d26a6954324bebd08d637ee0c35%7C686ea1d3bc2b4
> c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636757892882342025&amp;sdata=IIzUJuI
> 9nL5Wn7K5uAqjig9edpW6YIIcSOExNJNB5qE%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatch
> work.ozlabs.org%2Fpatch%2F985329%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Crajat.srivast
> ava%40nxp.com%7C56b81d26a6954324bebd08d637ee0c35%7C686ea1d3bc2b4
> c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636757892882342025&amp;sdata=N5qQJ
> E1776Wb3siJApPDCkUyY4vn0ZVLjCebn4hi6bk%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatch
> work.ozlabs.org%2Fpatch%2F985328%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Crajat.srivast
> ava%40nxp.com%7C56b81d26a6954324bebd08d637ee0c35%7C686ea1d3bc2b4
> c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636757892882342025&amp;sdata=tC%2F
> %2FsGVwV%2FrHBPX1gJ5TNYmVnJOL13XpAjgP87w3%2Bx0%3D&amp;reserved
> =0
> 
> I've just applied your 3 patches and have added SFDP support for
> our equipped SPI chip (with my patch not applied):
> 
> -       {"mx25l25635f",    INFO(0xc22019, 0x0, 64 * 1024,   512, RD_FULL |
> WR_QPP) },
> +       {"mx25l25635f",    INFO(0xc22019, 0x0, 64 * 1024,   512, RD_FULL |
> WR_QPP | SPI_FLASH_USE_SFDP) },
> 
> This does not seem to work though:

Simply adding SPI_FLASH_USE_SFDP flag is not enough to make SFDP work. You'll
need to add the driver code corresponding to the mtd layer code (in spi_flash.c)
which will send the actual READ SFDP command to flash.

The patch-set I floated adds driver code in fsl_qspi.c (Freescale/NXP QSPI driver).
Please find the patch at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/985329. 

After the mtd layer calls spi_flash_read_common() function to send any read
command to flash, it lands on driver which ultimately fires the command
(in this case 0x5A command to read SFDP) to flash. 

Since you say the flash is designed to support only 4-byte addressing mode
then it is possible that the READ_SFDP command (0x5A) is also required to be
sent in 4-byte mode (My patch sends 0x5A in 3-byte addressing mode which
is also the SFDP standard that every other flash supports).
Although I looked up the datasheet of mx25l25635f and it says that the
READ_SFDP command will be sent in 3-byte mode (as supported by my patch).

> 
> SF: Detected mx25l25635f with page size 0 Bytes, erase size 64 KiB, total 0 Bytes
> *** Warning - bad CRC, using default environment
> 
> Please note that I'm not opposed to using your SFDP support. But
> in our case it does not work - at least not without the
> SPI_FLASH_USE_SFDP addition. And it needs some fixing as well to
> fully detect the chip parameters. So I would prefer to go ahead
> with my patch for now.

My point is that if your case can be handled by adding a generic code,
instead of flash specific code then we should prefer the generic approach, what
do you say?

Thanks
Rajat