From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
Cc: Apurva Nandan <a-nandan@ti.com>,
linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] spi: cadence-quadspi: Disable Auto-HW polling
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:04:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210716180452.GD4137@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210715183627.qtibbtrbsq7wsx42@ti.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1313 bytes --]
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:06:29AM +0530, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On 15/07/21 05:41PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 09:57:51PM +0530, Apurva Nandan wrote:
> But then the problem is how to tell the caller whether the poll actually
> happened or not. The other option I see is:
> ret = spi_mem_set_autopoll_op(mem, poll_op, mask, match, ...);
> spi_mem_exec_op(mem, op);
>
> if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> poll_status();
> When spi_mem_set_autopoll_op() is called, the controller driver can
> check if it can autopoll with this op. It can configure its autopoll
> feature based on this, and can provide feedback to the caller about
> whether they will then have to poll themselves, or it has already been
> done for them.
I was more thinking about just having polling be a separate operation
entirely, but you're right that a controller might integrate polling
with the actual operation so that won't do and we need something more
like you suggest.
> I like the latter option more.
Yes.
> I think the question we need to answer first is whether doing all this
> is worth the hassle. Are there enough controllers with this auto polling
> feature to make it worth the bother?
If we build it they will come! :P But yes, that's definitely a concern.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-16 18:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-13 12:57 [PATCH 0/2] spi: cadence-quadspi: Fix DTR op checks and timeout in SPI NAND write operations Apurva Nandan
2021-07-13 12:57 ` [PATCH 1/2] spi: cadence-quadspi: Disable Auto-HW polling Apurva Nandan
2021-07-13 18:25 ` Mark Brown
2021-07-14 13:22 ` Nandan, Apurva
2021-07-14 16:28 ` Mark Brown
2021-07-14 17:51 ` Apurva Nandan
2021-07-15 16:27 ` Apurva Nandan
2021-07-15 16:41 ` Mark Brown
2021-07-15 18:36 ` Pratyush Yadav
2021-07-16 18:04 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2021-07-13 12:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] spi: cadence-quadspi: Fix check condition for DTR ops Apurva Nandan
2021-07-13 18:39 ` Mark Brown
2021-07-14 12:54 ` [EXTERNAL] " Nandan, Apurva
2021-07-16 18:31 ` (subset) [PATCH 0/2] spi: cadence-quadspi: Fix DTR op checks and timeout in SPI NAND write operations Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210716180452.GD4137@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=a-nandan@ti.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=p.yadav@ti.com \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).