From the HPG:
In some platform, SDCC controller can be connected to either an eMMC device or
an SD card. The PADs for SD card are dual-voltage that support 3v/1.8v. Those
PADs have a control signal (io_pad_pwr_switch/mode18 ) that indicates whether
the PAD works in 3v or 1.8v.
For SD usage the default value of this signal is ‘0’, and SD driver changes it
to ‘1’ as a part of voltage switching sequence.
For eMMC usage, SW should configure this signal to ‘1’ and supply 1.8v to PADs
before starting any activity on the eMMC BUS.
To set this signal, write the following in the
SDC1_SDCC_HC_VENDOR_SPECIFIC_FUNC register:
HC_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH: bit 16
HC_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN: bit 15
Changes since v1:
Modified comments on io_pad related changes.
Split some read+modify+write commands to multiple lines
Krishna Konda (1):
mmc: sdhci-msm: support voltage pad switching
Vijay Viswanath (1):
mmc: sdhci-msm: Add support to store supported vdd-io voltages
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device
can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of
platform device.
Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
index c283291..5c23e92 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
#include <linux/iopoll.h>
#include "sdhci-pltfm.h"
+#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
#define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50
#define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28
@@ -81,6 +82,9 @@
#define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19)
#define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19)
+#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25)
+#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26)
+
#define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130
#define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16)
#define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17)
@@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host {
u32 curr_io_level;
wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait;
bool pwr_irq_flag;
+ u32 caps_0;
};
static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct sdhci_host *host,
@@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 val, int reg)
sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type);
}
+static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host)
+{
+ struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc;
+ struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc;
+ int i, count;
+ u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV;
+
+ if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
+ count = regulator_count_voltages(supply);
+ if (count < 0)
+ return count;
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i);
+ if (vdd_uV <= 0)
+ continue;
+ if (vdd_uV > 2700000)
+ caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT;
+ if (vdd_uV < 1950000)
+ caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT;
+ }
+ }
+ msm_host->caps_0 |= caps;
+ pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc),
+ __func__, caps);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+
static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" },
{},
@@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
ret = sdhci_add_host(host);
if (ret)
goto pm_runtime_disable;
+ ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host);
+ if (ret)
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator caps: %d\n",
+ __func__, ret);
pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev);
pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
From: Krishna Konda <[email protected]>
The PADs for SD card are dual-voltage that support 3v/1.8v. Those PADs
have a control signal (io_pad_pwr_switch/mode18 ) that indicates
whether the PAD works in 3v or 1.8v.
SDHC core on msm platforms should have IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH bit set/unset
based on actual voltage used for IO lines. So when power irq is
triggered for io high or io low, the driver should check the voltages
supported and set the pad accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Krishna Konda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Venkat Gopalakrishnan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
index 5c23e92..96c81df 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
@@ -78,6 +78,8 @@
#define CORE_HC_MCLK_SEL_DFLT (2 << 8)
#define CORE_HC_MCLK_SEL_HS400 (3 << 8)
#define CORE_HC_MCLK_SEL_MASK (3 << 8)
+#define CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN (1 << 15)
+#define CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH (1 << 16)
#define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_EN BIT(18)
#define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19)
#define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19)
@@ -1109,6 +1111,7 @@ static void sdhci_msm_handle_pwr_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, int irq)
u32 irq_status, irq_ack = 0;
int retry = 10;
int pwr_state = 0, io_level = 0;
+ u32 config = 0;
irq_status = readl_relaxed(msm_host->core_mem + CORE_PWRCTL_STATUS);
@@ -1166,6 +1169,30 @@ static void sdhci_msm_handle_pwr_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, int irq)
*/
writel_relaxed(irq_ack, msm_host->core_mem + CORE_PWRCTL_CTL);
+ /* Ensure order between core_mem and hc_mem */
+ mb();
+ /*
+ * We should unset IO PAD PWR switch only if the register write can
+ * set IO lines high and the regulator also switches to 3 V.
+ * Else, we should keep the IO PAD PWR switch set.
+ * This is applicable to certain targets where eMMC vccq supply is only
+ * 1.8V. In such targets, even during REQ_IO_HIGH, the IO PAD PWR
+ * switch must be kept set to reflect actual regulator voltage. This
+ * way, during initialization of controllers with only 1.8V, we will
+ * set the IO PAD bit without waiting for a REQ_IO_LOW.
+ */
+ config = readl_relaxed(host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
+
+ if ((io_level & REQ_IO_HIGH) && (msm_host->caps_0 & CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT))
+ config &= ~CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH;
+ else if ((io_level & REQ_IO_LOW) ||
+ (msm_host->caps_0 & CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT))
+ config |= CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH;
+
+ writel_relaxed(config, host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
+ /* Ensure IO pad update before any further register read/writes */
+ mb();
+
if (pwr_state)
msm_host->curr_pwr_state = pwr_state;
if (io_level)
@@ -1518,6 +1545,13 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
}
/*
+ * Set the PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN bit so that the PAD_PWR_SWITCH bit can
+ * be used as required later on.
+ */
+ config = readl_relaxed(host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
+ config |= CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN;
+ writel_relaxed(config, host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
+ /*
* Power on reset state may trigger power irq if previous status of
* PWRCTL was either BUS_ON or IO_HIGH_V. So before enabling pwr irq
* interrupt in GIC, any pending power irq interrupt should be
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath
<[email protected]> wrote:
> During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device
> can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of
> platform device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> index c283291..5c23e92 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include <linux/iopoll.h>
>
> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h"
> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after
the local include?
> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50
> #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28
> @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@
> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19)
> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19)
>
> +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25)
> +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26)
> +
Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field,
so I'd have expected 0 and 1.
> #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130
> #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16)
> #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17)
> @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host {
> u32 curr_io_level;
> wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait;
> bool pwr_irq_flag;
> + u32 caps_0;
> };
>
> static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct sdhci_host *host,
> @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 val, int reg)
> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type);
> }
>
> +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host)
> +{
> + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc;
> + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc;
> + int i, count;
> + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV;
> +
> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
> + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply);
> + if (count < 0)
> + return count;
> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i);
> + if (vdd_uV <= 0)
> + continue;
> + if (vdd_uV > 2700000)
> + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT;
> + if (vdd_uV < 1950000)
> + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT;
> + }
Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than
open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it
was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a
voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from
mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()?
Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending
up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled
/ disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their
device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a
warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it
depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case.
> + }
How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it
important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2?
...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure
you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"?
> + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps;
> + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc),
> + __func__, caps);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +
> static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" },
> {},
> @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> ret = sdhci_add_host(host);
> if (ret)
> goto pm_runtime_disable;
> + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host);
> + if (ret)
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator caps: %d\n",
> + __func__, ret);
Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that
gives an idea of where we are.
>
> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev);
> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
> --
> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath
<[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Krishna Konda <[email protected]>
>
> The PADs for SD card are dual-voltage that support 3v/1.8v. Those PADs
> have a control signal (io_pad_pwr_switch/mode18 ) that indicates
> whether the PAD works in 3v or 1.8v.
>
> SDHC core on msm platforms should have IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH bit set/unset
> based on actual voltage used for IO lines. So when power irq is
> triggered for io high or io low, the driver should check the voltages
> supported and set the pad accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Konda <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Venkat Gopalakrishnan <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> index 5c23e92..96c81df 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> @@ -78,6 +78,8 @@
> #define CORE_HC_MCLK_SEL_DFLT (2 << 8)
> #define CORE_HC_MCLK_SEL_HS400 (3 << 8)
> #define CORE_HC_MCLK_SEL_MASK (3 << 8)
> +#define CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN (1 << 15)
> +#define CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH (1 << 16)
> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_EN BIT(18)
> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19)
> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19)
> @@ -1109,6 +1111,7 @@ static void sdhci_msm_handle_pwr_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, int irq)
> u32 irq_status, irq_ack = 0;
> int retry = 10;
> int pwr_state = 0, io_level = 0;
> + u32 config = 0;
Don't init things to 0 unless you're relying on it (you're not).
Doing so tends to bypass compiler warnings about "use before init" and
leads to uncaught bugs.
> irq_status = readl_relaxed(msm_host->core_mem + CORE_PWRCTL_STATUS);
> @@ -1166,6 +1169,30 @@ static void sdhci_msm_handle_pwr_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, int irq)
> */
> writel_relaxed(irq_ack, msm_host->core_mem + CORE_PWRCTL_CTL);
>
> + /* Ensure order between core_mem and hc_mem */
> + mb();
I spent a bit of time brushing up on my memory barriers and (as far as
I understand) I agree that in general mb() between accesses of
core_mem and hc_mem is technically needed since, as you say, there are
two separate io-mapped devices here and you're using relaxed
accessors.
Oh, but hold on. In this particular case they're truly not needed,
right? The value stored in CORE_VENDOR_SPEC should be exactly the
value you wrote last to it, right? ...and you're just reading it
back. There should be no need for any sort of barrier here...
...and, if you wanted to be _truly_ efficient (maybe you do since
you're going through all this trouble of using readl_relaxed) you
could just cache this value in "struct sdhci_msm_host" and you don't
even have to read it back at all.
> + /*
> + * We should unset IO PAD PWR switch only if the register write can
> + * set IO lines high and the regulator also switches to 3 V.
> + * Else, we should keep the IO PAD PWR switch set.
> + * This is applicable to certain targets where eMMC vccq supply is only
> + * 1.8V. In such targets, even during REQ_IO_HIGH, the IO PAD PWR
> + * switch must be kept set to reflect actual regulator voltage. This
> + * way, during initialization of controllers with only 1.8V, we will
> + * set the IO PAD bit without waiting for a REQ_IO_LOW.
> + */
> + config = readl_relaxed(host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
> +
> + if ((io_level & REQ_IO_HIGH) && (msm_host->caps_0 & CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT))
> + config &= ~CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH;
> + else if ((io_level & REQ_IO_LOW) ||
> + (msm_host->caps_0 & CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT))
> + config |= CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH;
Part of me thinks that this would all be much cleaner using the same
solution as "drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c". AKA: register
to be notified about changes to vqmmc and set the bit whenever it
flips. ...but I won't insist on that. I don't know a whole lot about
the whole "REQ_IO_HIGH" bug I guess it's a sane place to do this...
...but I will say that the fact that sometimes "config" isn't set to
anything at all here confuses me (IOW if you don't hit either the "if"
or "else if" then config is unchanged). I think the comment block
above tries to explain it, but I still don't really get it. Maybe
more examples? If I was describing the current algorithm, I'd give
these examples:
* If vqmmc can only be 1.8V then at init time we'll have set
PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN and leave the PAD_PWR_SWITCH set to 3.3V, but then
upon the first "REQ_IO_LOW" we'll transition down to 1.8V and stay
there forever.
* If vqmmc can only be 3.3V then at init time we'll have set
PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN and leave the PAD_PWR_SWITCH set to 3.3V always.
* If vqmmc can be either 3.3V or 1.8V then at init time we'll have set
PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN and leave the PAD_PWR_SWITCH set to 3.3V, but then
we'll honor REQ_IO_LOW / REQ_IO_HIGH.
* If vqmmc has an unknown range (or ins't provided) then we'll behave
like the 3.3V case (because earlier code initted PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN to
0 when it wrote CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_POR_VAL and then we never change it).
> +
> + writel_relaxed(config, host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
> + /* Ensure IO pad update before any further register read/writes */
> + mb();
I agree that (to the best of my understanding) this mb() ought to be
there, but maybe mention that the reason is that you have two separate
IO ranges for registers and that's why you need it.
Also: if you truly care about avoiding mb() calls (and since you're
using _relaxed variants I assume you do), you should avoid writing the
config and doing the "mb" if you didn't actually make a change.
> +
> if (pwr_state)
> msm_host->curr_pwr_state = pwr_state;
> if (io_level)
> @@ -1518,6 +1545,13 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> /*
> + * Set the PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN bit so that the PAD_PWR_SWITCH bit can
> + * be used as required later on.
> + */
> + config = readl_relaxed(host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
> + config |= CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN;
> + writel_relaxed(config, host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
If this is going to be unconditional (as you've written it) should
this be combined with the statement earlier in the same function where
we write "CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_POR_VAL" to this same register?
Seems like you could write:
#define CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_INIT_VAL (CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_POR_VAL | \
CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN)
...then just change the init line to use "CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_INIT_VAL"
instead of "CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_POR_VAL".
---
...but it seems like it might be even better just leave the "en" bit
off for now and just turn it on when you actually need it.
BTW: All I have is a very terse register spec in front of me, but do
you happen to know why "HC_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" even exists at all?
Is there some difference between "enabled but choose 3.3 V" and "not
enabled?" Also: do all versions of the controller supported by this
driver support this bit?
One last thing: on SDM845 one of the two SD controllers doesn't
support 1.8V, though the register description still describes these
bits. Presumably for that controller it's better to just not set
"enabled" at all?
-Doug
On 2018-03-02 10:23 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device
>> can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of
>> platform device.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> index c283291..5c23e92 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>> #include <linux/iopoll.h>
>>
>> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h"
>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>
> This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after
> the local include?
>
>
>> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50
>> #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28
>> @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@
>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19)
>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19)
>>
>> +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25)
>> +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26)
>> +
>
> Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field,
> so I'd have expected 0 and 1.
>
>
>> #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130
>> #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16)
>> #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17)
>> @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host {
>> u32 curr_io_level;
>> wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait;
>> bool pwr_irq_flag;
>> + u32 caps_0;
>> };
>>
>> static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct sdhci_host *host,
>> @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 val, int reg)
>> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type);
>> }
>>
>> +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host)
>> +{
>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc;
>> + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc;
>> + int i, count;
>> + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV;
>> +
>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>> + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply);
>> + if (count < 0)
>> + return count;
>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>> + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i);
>> + if (vdd_uV <= 0)
>> + continue;
>> + if (vdd_uV > 2700000)
>> + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT;
>> + if (vdd_uV < 1950000)
>> + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT;
>> + }
>
> Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than
> open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it
> was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a
> voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from
> mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()?
>
>
> Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending
> up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled
> / disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their
> device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a
> warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it
> depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case.
Both, initialize it to sane value and print something. This way at
least you have a good chance of booting and not hard hanging and you
are given a reasonable message indicating what needs to be fixed.
-jeremy
>
>
>> + }
>
> How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it
> important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2?
> ...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure
> you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"?
>
>
>> + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps;
>> + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc),
>> + __func__, caps);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +
>> static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = {
>> { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" },
>> {},
>> @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> ret = sdhci_add_host(host);
>> if (ret)
>> goto pm_runtime_disable;
>> + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host);
>> + if (ret)
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator caps: %d\n",
>> + __func__, ret);
>
> Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that
> gives an idea of where we are.
>
>
>>
>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev);
>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
>> --
>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Dough, Jeremy,
On 3/3/2018 4:38 AM, Jeremy McNicoll wrote:
> On 2018-03-02 10:23 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device
>>> can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of
>>> platform device.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>> index c283291..5c23e92 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/iopoll.h>
>>>
>>> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h"
>>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>>
>> This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after
>> the local include?
>>
>>
>>> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50
>>> #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28
>>> @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@
>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19)
>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19)
>>>
>>> +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25)
>>> +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26)
>>> +
>>
>> Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field,
>> so I'd have expected 0 and 1.
>>
>>
Yes, these bits are the same corresponding to the capabilities in the
Capabilities Register (offset 0x40). The bit positions become important
when capabilities register doesn't show support to some voltages, but we
can support those voltages. At that time, we will have to fake
capabilities. The changes for those are currently not yet pushed up.
>>> #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130
>>> #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16)
>>> #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17)
>>> @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host {
>>> u32 curr_io_level;
>>> wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait;
>>> bool pwr_irq_flag;
>>> + u32 caps_0;
>>> };
>>>
>>> static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct
>>> sdhci_host *host,
>>> @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host
>>> *host, u8 val, int reg)
>>> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host
>>> *msm_host)
>>> +{
>>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc;
>>> + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc;
>>> + int i, count;
>>> + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV;
>>> +
>>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>>> + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply);
>>> + if (count < 0)
>>> + return count;
>>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>>> + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i);
>>> + if (vdd_uV <= 0)
>>> + continue;
>>> + if (vdd_uV > 2700000)
>>> + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT;
>>> + if (vdd_uV < 1950000)
>>> + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT;
>>> + }
>>
>> Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than
>> open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it
>> was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a
>> voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from
>> mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()?
>>
>>
regulator_is_supported_voltage() checks for a range and it also uses
regulator_list_voltage() internally. regulator_list_voltage() is also an
exported API for use by drivers AFAIK. Please correct if it is not.
>> Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending
>> up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled
>> / disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their
>> device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a
>> warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it
>> depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case.
>
> Both, initialize it to sane value and print something. This way at
> least you have a good chance of booting and not hard hanging and you
> are given a reasonable message indicating what needs to be fixed.
>
> -jeremy
>
>>
>>
>>> + }
>>
>> How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it
>> important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2?
>> ...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure
>> you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"?
>>
>>
Thanks for the suggestion. If the regulators exit and doesn't list the
voltages, then I believe initialization itself will not happen. We will
not have any available ocr and in sdhci_setup_host it should fail.
But these enhancements can be incorporated. Since this patch is already
acknowledged, I will incorporate these changes in a subsequent patch.
>>> + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps;
>>> + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc),
>>> + __func__, caps);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +
>>> static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = {
>>> { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" },
>>> {},
>>> @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>> ret = sdhci_add_host(host);
>>> if (ret)
>>> goto pm_runtime_disable;
>>> + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator
>>> caps: %d\n",
>>> + __func__, ret);
>>
>> Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that
>> gives an idea of where we are.
>>
dev_err() doesn't give information of where it is getting called.
>>
>>>
>>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev);
>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
>>> --
>>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation
>>> Center, Inc.
>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
>>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
>>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Thanks,
Vijay
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Vijay Viswanath
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dough, Jeremy,
>
>
> On 3/3/2018 4:38 AM, Jeremy McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-03-02 10:23 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device
>>>> can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of
>>>> platform device.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>>> index c283291..5c23e92 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/iopoll.h>
>>>>
>>>> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h"
>>>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after
>>> the local include?
>>>
>>>
>>>> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50
>>>> #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28
>>>> @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@
>>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19)
>>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19)
>>>>
>>>> +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25)
>>>> +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26)
>>>> +
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field,
>>> so I'd have expected 0 and 1.
>>>
>>>
>
> Yes, these bits are the same corresponding to the capabilities in the
> Capabilities Register (offset 0x40). The bit positions become important when
> capabilities register doesn't show support to some voltages, but we can
> support those voltages. At that time, we will have to fake capabilities. The
> changes for those are currently not yet pushed up.
>
>
>>>> #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130
>>>> #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16)
>>>> #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17)
>>>> @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host {
>>>> u32 curr_io_level;
>>>> wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait;
>>>> bool pwr_irq_flag;
>>>> + u32 caps_0;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct sdhci_host
>>>> *host,
>>>> @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host
>>>> *host, u8 val, int reg)
>>>> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host
>>>> *msm_host)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc;
>>>> + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc;
>>>> + int i, count;
>>>> + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>>>> + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply);
>>>> + if (count < 0)
>>>> + return count;
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>>>> + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i);
>>>> + if (vdd_uV <= 0)
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + if (vdd_uV > 2700000)
>>>> + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT;
>>>> + if (vdd_uV < 1950000)
>>>> + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>>
>>> Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than
>>> open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it
>>> was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a
>>> voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from
>>> mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()?
>>>
>>>
>
> regulator_is_supported_voltage() checks for a range and it also uses
> regulator_list_voltage() internally. regulator_list_voltage() is also an
> exported API for use by drivers AFAIK. Please correct if it is not.
Sure, regulator_list_voltage() is valid to call. I'm not saying that
your code is wrong or violates abstractions, just that it's
essentially re-implementing regulator_is_supported_voltage() for very
little gain. Calling regulator_is_supported_voltage() is better
because:
1. In theory, it should generate less code. Sure, it might loop twice
with the current implementation of regulator_is_supported_voltage(),
but for a non-time-critical section like this smaller code is likely
better than faster code (decreases kernel size / uses up less cache
space, etc).
2. If regulator_is_supported_voltage() is ever improved to be more
efficient you'll get that improvement automatically. If someone
happened to source vqmmc from a PWM regulator, for instance, trying to
enumerate all voltages like this would be a disaster.
3. Code will be simpler to understand.
You can replace your whole loop with:
if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 1700000, 1950000))
caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT
if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 2700000, 3600000))
caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT
>>> Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending
>>> up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled
>>> / disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their
>>> device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a
>>> warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it
>>> depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case.
>>
>>
>> Both, initialize it to sane value and print something. This way at
>> least you have a good chance of booting and not hard hanging and you
>> are given a reasonable message indicating what needs to be fixed.
>>
>> -jeremy
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> + }
>>>
>>>
>>> How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it
>>> important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2?
>>> ...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure
>>> you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"?
>>>
>>>
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. If the regulators exit and doesn't list the
> voltages, then I believe initialization itself will not happen. We will not
> have any available ocr and in sdhci_setup_host it should fail.
> But these enhancements can be incorporated. Since this patch is already
> acknowledged, I will incorporate these changes in a subsequent patch.
It's already acknowledged? I saw that your RFC was acknowledged by
Adrian Hunter but then you didn't include that tag in the posting of
v2, so I assumed for some reason it no longer applied. If you're
thinking that Ulf would be the one to apply this patch, he probably
doesn't know that it's Acked either.
Perhaps Adrian or Ulf can give direction for how they see this patch proceeding.
>>>> + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps;
>>>> + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc),
>>>> + __func__, caps);
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>>> static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = {
>>>> { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" },
>>>> {},
>>>> @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device
>>>> *pdev)
>>>> ret = sdhci_add_host(host);
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> goto pm_runtime_disable;
>>>> + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator caps:
>>>> %d\n",
>>>> + __func__, ret);
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that
>>> gives an idea of where we are.
>>>
>
> dev_err() doesn't give information of where it is getting called.
It gives you the driver and the error message should be unique to the
driver and easy to find. Including "__func__ in messages like this is
discouraged unless you are in a context where you somehow can't get
access to the device pointer. I suppose ultimately it's up the the
maintainer for individual cases but overall I've seen this to be a
consistently applied rule in the kernel.
In any case, why would this particular print be special that it should
include __func__ but all others (in this file, or in dev_err in
general) shouldn't?
>>>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev);
>>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
>>>> --
>>>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation
>>>> Center, Inc.
>>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
>>>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
>>>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
> Thanks,
> Vijay
On 2018-03-02 10:25 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> From: Krishna Konda <[email protected]>
>>
>> The PADs for SD card are dual-voltage that support 3v/1.8v. Those PADs
>> have a control signal (io_pad_pwr_switch/mode18 ) that indicates
>> whether the PAD works in 3v or 1.8v.
>>
>> SDHC core on msm platforms should have IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH bit set/unset
>> based on actual voltage used for IO lines. So when power irq is
>> triggered for io high or io low, the driver should check the voltages
>> supported and set the pad accordingly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krishna Konda <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Venkat Gopalakrishnan <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> index 5c23e92..96c81df 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> @@ -78,6 +78,8 @@
>> #define CORE_HC_MCLK_SEL_DFLT (2 << 8)
>> #define CORE_HC_MCLK_SEL_HS400 (3 << 8)
>> #define CORE_HC_MCLK_SEL_MASK (3 << 8)
>> +#define CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN (1 << 15)
>> +#define CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH (1 << 16)
>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_EN BIT(18)
>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19)
>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19)
>> @@ -1109,6 +1111,7 @@ static void sdhci_msm_handle_pwr_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, int irq)
>> u32 irq_status, irq_ack = 0;
>> int retry = 10;
>> int pwr_state = 0, io_level = 0;
>> + u32 config = 0;
>
> Don't init things to 0 unless you're relying on it (you're not).
> Doing so tends to bypass compiler warnings about "use before init" and
> leads to uncaught bugs.
>
>
>> irq_status = readl_relaxed(msm_host->core_mem + CORE_PWRCTL_STATUS);
>> @@ -1166,6 +1169,30 @@ static void sdhci_msm_handle_pwr_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, int irq)
>> */
>> writel_relaxed(irq_ack, msm_host->core_mem + CORE_PWRCTL_CTL);
>>
>> + /* Ensure order between core_mem and hc_mem */
>> + mb();
>
> I spent a bit of time brushing up on my memory barriers and (as far as
> I understand) I agree that in general mb() between accesses of
> core_mem and hc_mem is technically needed since, as you say, there are
> two separate io-mapped devices here and you're using relaxed
> accessors.
>
> Oh, but hold on. In this particular case they're truly not needed,
> right? The value stored in CORE_VENDOR_SPEC should be exactly the
> value you wrote last to it, right? ...and you're just reading it
> back. There should be no need for any sort of barrier here...
> ...and, if you wanted to be _truly_ efficient (maybe you do since
> you're going through all this trouble of using readl_relaxed) you
> could just cache this value in "struct sdhci_msm_host" and you don't
> even have to read it back at all.
>
>
>> + /*
>> + * We should unset IO PAD PWR switch only if the register write can
>> + * set IO lines high and the regulator also switches to 3 V.
>> + * Else, we should keep the IO PAD PWR switch set.
>> + * This is applicable to certain targets where eMMC vccq supply is only
>> + * 1.8V. In such targets, even during REQ_IO_HIGH, the IO PAD PWR
>> + * switch must be kept set to reflect actual regulator voltage. This
>> + * way, during initialization of controllers with only 1.8V, we will
>> + * set the IO PAD bit without waiting for a REQ_IO_LOW.
>> + */
>> + config = readl_relaxed(host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
>> +
>> + if ((io_level & REQ_IO_HIGH) && (msm_host->caps_0 & CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT))
>> + config &= ~CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH;
>> + else if ((io_level & REQ_IO_LOW) ||
>> + (msm_host->caps_0 & CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT))
>> + config |= CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH;
>
> Part of me thinks that this would all be much cleaner using the same
> solution as "drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c". AKA: register
> to be notified about changes to vqmmc and set the bit whenever it
> flips. ...but I won't insist on that. I don't know a whole lot about
> the whole "REQ_IO_HIGH" bug I guess it's a sane place to do this...
>
> ...but I will say that the fact that sometimes "config" isn't set to
> anything at all here confuses me (IOW if you don't hit either the "if"
> or "else if" then config is unchanged). I think the comment block
> above tries to explain it, but I still don't really get it. Maybe
> more examples? If I was describing the current algorithm, I'd give
> these examples:
>
> * If vqmmc can only be 1.8V then at init time we'll have set
> PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN and leave the PAD_PWR_SWITCH set to 3.3V, but then
> upon the first "REQ_IO_LOW" we'll transition down to 1.8V and stay
> there forever.
>
> * If vqmmc can only be 3.3V then at init time we'll have set
> PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN and leave the PAD_PWR_SWITCH set to 3.3V always.
>
> * If vqmmc can be either 3.3V or 1.8V then at init time we'll have set
> PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN and leave the PAD_PWR_SWITCH set to 3.3V, but then
> we'll honor REQ_IO_LOW / REQ_IO_HIGH.
>
> * If vqmmc has an unknown range (or ins't provided) then we'll behave
> like the 3.3V case (because earlier code initted PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN to
> 0 when it wrote CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_POR_VAL and then we never change it).
>
>
>> +
>> + writel_relaxed(config, host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
>> + /* Ensure IO pad update before any further register read/writes */
>> + mb();
>
> I agree that (to the best of my understanding) this mb() ought to be
> there, but maybe mention that the reason is that you have two separate
> IO ranges for registers and that's why you need it.
>
> Also: if you truly care about avoiding mb() calls (and since you're
> using _relaxed variants I assume you do), you should avoid writing the
> config and doing the "mb" if you didn't actually make a change.
>
>
>> +
>> if (pwr_state)
>> msm_host->curr_pwr_state = pwr_state;
>> if (io_level)
>> @@ -1518,6 +1545,13 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> + * Set the PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN bit so that the PAD_PWR_SWITCH bit can
>> + * be used as required later on.
>> + */
>> + config = readl_relaxed(host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
>> + config |= CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN;
>> + writel_relaxed(config, host->ioaddr + CORE_VENDOR_SPEC);
>
> If this is going to be unconditional (as you've written it) should
> this be combined with the statement earlier in the same function where
> we write "CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_POR_VAL" to this same register?
>
> Seems like you could write:
>
> #define CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_INIT_VAL (CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_POR_VAL | \
> CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN)
>
> ...then just change the init line to use "CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_INIT_VAL"
> instead of "CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_POR_VAL".
>
> ---
>
> ...but it seems like it might be even better just leave the "en" bit
> off for now and just turn it on when you actually need it.
>
> BTW: All I have is a very terse register spec in front of me, but do
> you happen to know why "HC_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" even exists at all?
> Is there some difference between "enabled but choose 3.3 V" and "not
> enabled?" Also: do all versions of the controller supported by this
> driver support this bit?
>
> One last thing: on SDM845 one of the two SD controllers doesn't
> support 1.8V, though the register description still describes these
> bits. Presumably for that controller it's better to just not set
> "enabled" at all?
>
>
>
Looking forward to reviewing and testing V3.
-jeremy
On 3/7/2018 9:42 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Vijay Viswanath
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi Dough, Jeremy,
>>
>>
>> On 3/3/2018 4:38 AM, Jeremy McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2018-03-02 10:23 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device
>>>>> can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of
>>>>> platform device.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>>>> index c283291..5c23e92 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/iopoll.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h"
>>>>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after
>>>> the local include?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50
>>>>> #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28
>>>>> @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@
>>>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19)
>>>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19)
>>>>>
>>>>> +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25)
>>>>> +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26)
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field,
>>>> so I'd have expected 0 and 1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Yes, these bits are the same corresponding to the capabilities in the
>> Capabilities Register (offset 0x40). The bit positions become important when
>> capabilities register doesn't show support to some voltages, but we can
>> support those voltages. At that time, we will have to fake capabilities. The
>> changes for those are currently not yet pushed up.
>>
>>
>>>>> #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130
>>>>> #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16)
>>>>> #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17)
>>>>> @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host {
>>>>> u32 curr_io_level;
>>>>> wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait;
>>>>> bool pwr_irq_flag;
>>>>> + u32 caps_0;
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct sdhci_host
>>>>> *host,
>>>>> @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host
>>>>> *host, u8 val, int reg)
>>>>> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host
>>>>> *msm_host)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc;
>>>>> + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc;
>>>>> + int i, count;
>>>>> + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>>>>> + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply);
>>>>> + if (count < 0)
>>>>> + return count;
>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>>>>> + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i);
>>>>> + if (vdd_uV <= 0)
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> + if (vdd_uV > 2700000)
>>>>> + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT;
>>>>> + if (vdd_uV < 1950000)
>>>>> + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT;
>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than
>>>> open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it
>>>> was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a
>>>> voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from
>>>> mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> regulator_is_supported_voltage() checks for a range and it also uses
>> regulator_list_voltage() internally. regulator_list_voltage() is also an
>> exported API for use by drivers AFAIK. Please correct if it is not.
>
> Sure, regulator_list_voltage() is valid to call. I'm not saying that
> your code is wrong or violates abstractions, just that it's
> essentially re-implementing regulator_is_supported_voltage() for very
> little gain. Calling regulator_is_supported_voltage() is better
> because:
>
> 1. In theory, it should generate less code. Sure, it might loop twice
> with the current implementation of regulator_is_supported_voltage(),
> but for a non-time-critical section like this smaller code is likely
> better than faster code (decreases kernel size / uses up less cache
> space, etc).
>
> 2. If regulator_is_supported_voltage() is ever improved to be more
> efficient you'll get that improvement automatically. If someone
> happened to source vqmmc from a PWM regulator, for instance, trying to
> enumerate all voltages like this would be a disaster.
>
> 3. Code will be simpler to understand.
>
> You can replace your whole loop with:
>
> if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 1700000, 1950000))
> caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT
> if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 2700000, 3600000))
> caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT
>
>
>>>> Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending
>>>> up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled
>>>> / disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their
>>>> device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a
>>>> warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it
>>>> depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case.
>>>
>>>
>>> Both, initialize it to sane value and print something. This way at
>>> least you have a good chance of booting and not hard hanging and you
>>> are given a reasonable message indicating what needs to be fixed.
>>>
>>> -jeremy
>>>
Its good to add a warning, but initializing it to some value might not
be appropriate. It will be better to leave it blank and if caps doesn't
have any of 1.8V/3V, better to not enable IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it
>>>> important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2?
>>>> ...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure
>>>> you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion. If the regulators exit and doesn't list the
>> voltages, then I believe initialization itself will not happen. We will not
>> have any available ocr and in sdhci_setup_host it should fail.
>> But these enhancements can be incorporated. Since this patch is already
>> acknowledged, I will incorporate these changes in a subsequent patch.
>
> It's already acknowledged? I saw that your RFC was acknowledged by
> Adrian Hunter but then you didn't include that tag in the posting of
> v2, so I assumed for some reason it no longer applied. If you're
> thinking that Ulf would be the one to apply this patch, he probably
> doesn't know that it's Acked either.
>
> Perhaps Adrian or Ulf can give direction for how they see this patch proceeding.
>
>
Since I put up V2 anyway, I will include your suggestions and put V3. My
mistake, I didn't notice the ACK was for RFC.
>>>>> + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps;
>>>>> + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc),
>>>>> + __func__, caps);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +
>>>>> static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = {
>>>>> { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" },
>>>>> {},
>>>>> @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device
>>>>> *pdev)
>>>>> ret = sdhci_add_host(host);
>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>> goto pm_runtime_disable;
>>>>> + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host);
>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator caps:
>>>>> %d\n",
>>>>> + __func__, ret);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that
>>>> gives an idea of where we are.
>>>>
>>
>> dev_err() doesn't give information of where it is getting called.
>
> It gives you the driver and the error message should be unique to the
> driver and easy to find. Including "__func__ in messages like this is
> discouraged unless you are in a context where you somehow can't get
> access to the device pointer. I suppose ultimately it's up the the
> maintainer for individual cases but overall I've seen this to be a
> consistently applied rule in the kernel.
>
> In any case, why would this particular print be special that it should
> include __func__ but all others (in this file, or in dev_err in
> general) shouldn't?
>
>
>>>>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev);
>>>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
>>>>> --
>>>>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation
>>>>> Center, Inc.
>>>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
>>>>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
>>>>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
>>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vijay
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
Thanks,
Vijay
On 2018-03-19 5:32 AM, Vijay Viswanath wrote:
>
>
> On 3/7/2018 9:42 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Vijay Viswanath
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Dough, Jeremy,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/3/2018 4:38 AM, Jeremy McNicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2018-03-02 10:23 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform
>>>>>> device
>>>>>> can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of
>>>>>> platform device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38
>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>>>>> index c283291..5c23e92 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>>>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>>>>> #include <linux/iopoll.h>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h"
>>>>>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after
>>>>> the local include?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50
>>>>>> #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28
>>>>>> @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@
>>>>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19)
>>>>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25)
>>>>>> +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26)
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field,
>>>>> so I'd have expected 0 and 1.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, these bits are the same corresponding to the capabilities in the
>>> Capabilities Register (offset 0x40). The bit positions become
>>> important when
>>> capabilities register doesn't show support to some voltages, but we can
>>> support those voltages. At that time, we will have to fake
>>> capabilities. The
>>> changes for those are currently not yet pushed up.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130
>>>>>> #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16)
>>>>>> #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17)
>>>>>> @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host {
>>>>>> u32 curr_io_level;
>>>>>> wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait;
>>>>>> bool pwr_irq_flag;
>>>>>> + u32 caps_0;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct
>>>>>> sdhci_host
>>>>>> *host,
>>>>>> @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host
>>>>>> *host, u8 val, int reg)
>>>>>> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host
>>>>>> *msm_host)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc;
>>>>>> + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc;
>>>>>> + int i, count;
>>>>>> + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>>>>>> + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply);
>>>>>> + if (count < 0)
>>>>>> + return count;
>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>>>>>> + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i);
>>>>>> + if (vdd_uV <= 0)
>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>> + if (vdd_uV > 2700000)
>>>>>> + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT;
>>>>>> + if (vdd_uV < 1950000)
>>>>>> + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than
>>>>> open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it
>>>>> was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a
>>>>> voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from
>>>>> mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> regulator_is_supported_voltage() checks for a range and it also uses
>>> regulator_list_voltage() internally. regulator_list_voltage() is also an
>>> exported API for use by drivers AFAIK. Please correct if it is not.
>>
>> Sure, regulator_list_voltage() is valid to call. I'm not saying that
>> your code is wrong or violates abstractions, just that it's
>> essentially re-implementing regulator_is_supported_voltage() for very
>> little gain. Calling regulator_is_supported_voltage() is better
>> because:
>>
>> 1. In theory, it should generate less code. Sure, it might loop twice
>> with the current implementation of regulator_is_supported_voltage(),
>> but for a non-time-critical section like this smaller code is likely
>> better than faster code (decreases kernel size / uses up less cache
>> space, etc).
>>
>> 2. If regulator_is_supported_voltage() is ever improved to be more
>> efficient you'll get that improvement automatically. If someone
>> happened to source vqmmc from a PWM regulator, for instance, trying to
>> enumerate all voltages like this would be a disaster.
>>
>> 3. Code will be simpler to understand.
>>
>> You can replace your whole loop with:
>>
>> if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 1700000, 1950000))
>> caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT
>> if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 2700000, 3600000))
>> caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT
>>
>>
>>>>> Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending
>>>>> up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled
>>>>> / disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their
>>>>> device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a
>>>>> warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it
>>>>> depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both, initialize it to sane value and print something. This way at
>>>> least you have a good chance of booting and not hard hanging and you
>>>> are given a reasonable message indicating what needs to be fixed.
>>>>
>>>> -jeremy
>>>>
>
> Its good to add a warning, but initializing it to some value might not
> be appropriate. It will be better to leave it blank and if caps doesn't
> have any of 1.8V/3V, better to not enable IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN.
>
That makes sense, this way if someone messes up their dts they will at
least get a message and we won't set the voltage to something that could
potentially destroy / harm the hardware.
-jeremy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it
>>>>> important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2?
>>>>> ...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure
>>>>> you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the suggestion. If the regulators exit and doesn't list the
>>> voltages, then I believe initialization itself will not happen. We
>>> will not
>>> have any available ocr and in sdhci_setup_host it should fail.
>>> But these enhancements can be incorporated. Since this patch is already
>>> acknowledged, I will incorporate these changes in a subsequent patch.
>>
>> It's already acknowledged? I saw that your RFC was acknowledged by
>> Adrian Hunter but then you didn't include that tag in the posting of
>> v2, so I assumed for some reason it no longer applied. If you're
>> thinking that Ulf would be the one to apply this patch, he probably
>> doesn't know that it's Acked either.
>>
>> Perhaps Adrian or Ulf can give direction for how they see this patch
>> proceeding.
>>
>>
>
> Since I put up V2 anyway, I will include your suggestions and put V3. My
> mistake, I didn't notice the ACK was for RFC.
>
>>>>>> + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps;
>>>>>> + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n",
>>>>>> mmc_hostname(mmc),
>>>>>> + __func__, caps);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = {
>>>>>> { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" },
>>>>>> {},
>>>>>> @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct
>>>>>> platform_device
>>>>>> *pdev)
>>>>>> ret = sdhci_add_host(host);
>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>> goto pm_runtime_disable;
>>>>>> + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host);
>>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator
>>>>>> caps:
>>>>>> %d\n",
>>>>>> + __func__, ret);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that
>>>>> gives an idea of where we are.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> dev_err() doesn't give information of where it is getting called.
>>
>> It gives you the driver and the error message should be unique to the
>> driver and easy to find. Including "__func__ in messages like this is
>> discouraged unless you are in a context where you somehow can't get
>> access to the device pointer. I suppose ultimately it's up the the
>> maintainer for individual cases but overall I've seen this to be a
>> consistently applied rule in the kernel.
>>
>> In any case, why would this particular print be special that it should
>> include __func__ but all others (in this file, or in dev_err in
>> general) shouldn't?
>>
>>
>>>>>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev);
>>>>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation
>>>>>> Center, Inc.
>>>>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
>>>>>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>>>>>> linux-mmc" in
>>>>>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
>>>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vijay
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>
> Thanks,
> Vijay
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html