-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 201
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
spi: add Read and separate-buffers Transfer #287
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
has this always been the case or have we implicitly been assuming
read.len() == write.len()
? and is this sensible to represent for more complex implementors (ie. using DMA, linux)?we have
Transactional
for building sequences, if you need to do varying length things, it would seem to me to be simpler (or maybe, less surprising to demand the same lengths here?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Before this PR, only the single-buffer
Transfer
(nowTransferInplace
) existed. Single-buffer already enforcedread len = write len
.The idea for the
runs for max(read.len(), write.len())
comes from the nRF SPI DMA, which automatically does this. It's somewhat handy, for example to do "write command byte, read big data" you can make the write buf small (1 byte) and only need memory for a big read buf (1 + N bytes).I agree it's not that useful if we have TransferInplace or Transactional, and it could be annoying to support using stm32 DMA for example...
If we require same-length for both bufs, do we mandate that impls panic on length mismatch, or return an error?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This was discussed in today's REWG meeting. TLDR: seems people are OK with differing lengths.
Also the possibility of allowing impls to support it or not was discussed, but IMO it defeats the point since drivers wouldn't be able to use it.