Skip to contentSkip to conversation

spi: dt-bindings: add SPI IPM v59 compatible for mt7987 and mt7989

PATCH In review Tim Kuo 2 participants 3 messages Sep 29 – Sep 30

Subsystems (3)
Device tree bindings Arm MediaTek SPI
lore
Share & tools
lore

Tim Kuo

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/2 spi: dt-bindings: add SPI IPM v59 compatible for mt7987 and mt7989

MTK mt7987 and mt7989 SPI hardware has been updated to IPM v59 SPI IP and it differs from earlier IPM designs, most visibly in the tick delay field of SPI_CMD_REG, so it needs its own fallback compatible rather than reusing "mediatek,spi-ipm".

Signed-off-by Tim Kuo <[email protected]>

---
v2: Add mt7987 and mt7989 real device compatible

 .../devicetree/bindings/spi/mediatek,spi-mt65xx.yaml         | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/mediatek,spi-mt65xx.yaml +5 -0
index 3bf3eb1f8728..d2c740572d85 100644
@@ -39,6 +39,11 @@ properties:
               - mediatek,mt7988-spi-single
               - mediatek,mt8188-spi-ipm
           - const: mediatek,spi-ipm
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - mediatek,mt7987-spi
+              - mediatek,mt7989-spi
+          - const: mediatek,spi-ipm-v59
       - items:
           - enum:
               - mediatek,mt8196-spi

base-commit: 0d9d0dbf2fddcff5859d623e90ca73c4054276e1

Signature · 1 line
2.45.2
author
#1 lore raw

PATCH v2 2/2 spi: mt65xx: support wider tick delay field on IPM v59

The IPM v59 SPI IP widens the tick delay field in SPI_CMD_REG from 3 bits (bits 24:22) to 7 bits (bits 28:22), so the field width can no longer be hardcoded in mtk_spi_hw_init().

Add a tick_dly_mask member to struct mtk_spi_compatible and use field_prep() with the per-SoC mask instead of the open-coded mask-and-shift, then add a mtk_ipm_v59_compat entry carrying the wider mask along with a "mediatek,spi-ipm-v59" compatible. Any further changes related to IPM v59 can be modified based on this compatible.

Existing IPM designs keep GENMASK(24, 22) and are functionally unchanged.

Signed-off-by Tim Kuo <[email protected]>

---
v2: remove unused tickdly offset deadcode

 drivers/spi/spi-mt65xx.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
drivers/spi/spi-mt65xx.c +21 -5
index b845a599f7c6..e9ec58ce1e1f 100644
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
  * Author: Leilk Liu <[email protected]>
  */
 
+#include <linux/bitfield.h>
 #include <linux/clk.h>
 #include <linux/device.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>

@@ -78,9 +79,9 @@
 #define SPI_CMD_PAUSE_IE		BIT(17)
 #define SPI_CMD_IPM_NONIDLE_MODE	BIT(19)
 #define SPI_CMD_IPM_SPIM_LOOP		BIT(21)
-#define SPI_CMD_IPM_GET_TICKDLY_OFFSET	22
 
 #define SPI_CMD_IPM_GET_TICKDLY_MASK	GENMASK(24, 22)
+#define SPI_CMD_IPM_V59_GET_TICKDLY_MASK	GENMASK(28, 22)
 
 #define PIN_MODE_CFG(x)	((x) / 2)
 

@@ -120,6 +121,7 @@
  * @dma_ext:		DMA address extension supported
  * @no_need_unprepare:	Don't unprepare the SPI clk during runtime
  * @ipm_design:		Adjust/extend registers to support IPM design IP features
+ * @tick_dly_mask:	Tick delay field of SPI_CMD_REG, IPM designs only
  */
 struct mtk_spi_compatible {
 	bool need_pad_sel;

@@ -128,6 +130,7 @@ struct mtk_spi_compatible {
 	bool dma_ext;
 	bool no_need_unprepare;
 	bool ipm_design;
+	u32 tick_dly_mask;
 };
 
 /**

@@ -187,6 +190,15 @@ static const struct mtk_spi_compatible mtk_ipm_compat = {
 	.enhance_timing = true,
 	.dma_ext = true,
 	.ipm_design = true,
+	.tick_dly_mask = SPI_CMD_IPM_GET_TICKDLY_MASK,
+};
+
+/* Every SoC with IPM v59 or newer shares this */
+static const struct mtk_spi_compatible mtk_ipm_v59_compat = {
+	.enhance_timing = true,
+	.dma_ext = true,
+	.ipm_design = true,
+	.tick_dly_mask = SPI_CMD_IPM_V59_GET_TICKDLY_MASK,
 };
 
 static const struct mtk_spi_compatible mt6765_compat = {

@@ -226,6 +238,7 @@ static const struct mtk_spi_compatible mt6991_compat = {
 	.enhance_timing = true,
 	.dma_ext = true,
 	.ipm_design = true,
+	.tick_dly_mask = SPI_CMD_IPM_GET_TICKDLY_MASK,
 };
 
 /*

@@ -241,6 +254,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id mtk_spi_of_match[] = {
 	{ .compatible = "mediatek,spi-ipm",
 		.data = (void *)&mtk_ipm_compat,
 	},
+	{ .compatible = "mediatek,spi-ipm-v59",
+		.data = (void *)&mtk_ipm_v59_compat,
+	},
 	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-spi",
 		.data = (void *)&mtk_common_compat,
 	},

@@ -366,7 +382,7 @@ static int mtk_spi_hw_init(struct spi_controller *host,
 			   struct spi_device *spi)
 {
 	u16 cpha, cpol;
-	u32 reg_val;
+	u32 reg_val, mask;
 	struct mtk_chip_config *chip_config = spi->controller_data;
 	struct mtk_spi *mdata = spi_controller_get_devdata(host);
 

@@ -443,10 +459,10 @@ static int mtk_spi_hw_init(struct spi_controller *host,
 	/* tick delay */
 	if (mdata->dev_comp->enhance_timing) {
 		if (mdata->dev_comp->ipm_design) {
+			mask = mdata->dev_comp->tick_dly_mask;
 			reg_val = readl(mdata->base + SPI_CMD_REG);
-			reg_val &= ~SPI_CMD_IPM_GET_TICKDLY_MASK;
-			reg_val |= ((chip_config->tick_delay & 0x7)
-				    << SPI_CMD_IPM_GET_TICKDLY_OFFSET);
+			reg_val &= ~mask;
+			reg_val |= field_prep(mask, chip_config->tick_delay);
 			writel(reg_val, mdata->base + SPI_CMD_REG);
 		} else {
 			reg_val = readl(mdata->base + SPI_CFG1_REG);
Signature · 1 line
2.45.2
#2 lore raw
In reply to Tim Kuo
Quoted 17 lines · Tim Kuo

MTK mt7987 and mt7989 SPI hardware has been updated to IPM v59 SPI IP and it differs from earlier IPM designs, most visibly in the tick delay field of SPI_CMD_REG, so it needs its own fallback compatible rather than reusing "mediatek,spi-ipm".

Signed-off-by Tim Kuo <[email protected]>

---
v2: Add mt7987 and mt7989 real device compatible

 .../devicetree/bindings/spi/mediatek,spi-mt65xx.yaml         | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/mediatek,spi-mt65xx.yaml +0 -0
index 3bf3eb1f8728..d2c740572d85 100644

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/mediatek,spi-mt65xx.yaml properties: · line 46

Quoted 8 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/mediatek,spi-mt65xx.yaml +5 -0
@@ -39,6 +39,11 @@ properties:
               - mediatek,mt7988-spi-single
               - mediatek,mt8188-spi-ipm
           - const: mediatek,spi-ipm
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - mediatek,mt7987-spi
+              - mediatek,mt7989-spi
+          - const: mediatek,spi-ipm-v59

No, look at the binding and recent commits. This should be a specific compatible. Git history easily tells you that.

Best regards,
Krzysztof