Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751887AbaKYCin (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:38:43 -0500 Received: from regular1.263xmail.com ([211.150.99.132]:41877 "EHLO regular1.263xmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751534AbaKYCik (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:38:40 -0500 X-263anti-spam: KSV:0; X-MAIL-GRAY: 0 X-MAIL-DELIVERY: 1 X-KSVirus-check: 0 X-ABS-CHECKED: 4 X-RL-SENDER: addy.ke@rock-chips.com X-FST-TO: ulf.hansson@linaro.org X-SENDER-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-LOGIN-NAME: addy.ke@rock-chips.com X-UNIQUE-TAG: <81873a9d63550eda5c4bbc1906515ba1> X-ATTACHMENT-NUM: 0 X-DNS-TYPE: 0 Message-ID: <5473EB8B.3000803@rock-chips.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:38:03 +0800 From: Addy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulf Hansson , Doug Anderson CC: Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Randy Dunlap , "tgih.jun@samsung.com" , Jaehoon Chung , Chris Ball , Dinh Nguyen , =?UTF-8?B?SGVpa28gU3TDvGJuZXI=?= , Olof Johansson , Sonny Rao , Alexandru Stan , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mmc , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." , "zhenfu.fang" , Eddie Cai , lintao , chenfen , zyf , Jianqun Xu , Tao Huang , Chris Zhong , =?UTF-8?B?5aea5pm65oOF?= , han jiang , Kever Yang , zhangqing , Lin Huang Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: dw_mmc: try pick the exact same voltage as vmmc for vqmmc References: <1415109789-7046-1-git-send-email-addy.ke@rock-chips.com> <1415678573-6093-1-git-send-email-addy.ke@rock-chips.com> <5464152E.7040209@rock-chips.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 21 November 2014 at 22:04, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: >>> Ulf, >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> Sure >>>>> If the first card is sd2.0 since startup, dw_mci_switch_voltage will not be called, >>>> That can't be right. mmc_power_up() should trigger >>>> dw_mci_switch_voltage() to be invoked. >>> Hmmm, I think you're right. Addy: can you double check if it's only >>> the 2nd card for you? I was thinking that if a regulator is currently >>> 3.3V and you request 2.7 - 3.3V the regulator framework will treat >>> that as a noop. ...but that definitely doesn't appear to be the case. >>> When I boot up the first time even with no SD card plugged in, I see >>> this at bootup: >>> >>> [ 3.042234] vccio_sd: 1800 <--> 3300 mV at 3300 mV >>> >>> ...showing that it started at 3.3V. Then I see: >>> >>> $ grep "" /sys/class/regulator/regulator.16/{name,microvolts} >>> /sys/class/regulator/regulator.16/name:vccio_sd >>> /sys/class/regulator/regulator.16/microvolts:2700000 >>> >>> ...so it is certainly getting changed even with no card plugged in. >>> >>> >>> BTW: I don't actually have one of these failing cards--all of mine >>> work. Addy, do you know the make and model of the card you have that >>> fails? >> Just as a bit of a followup, I did some more digging... >> >> 1. It looks as if we now have a bit of "opposite" logic for vmmc vs. >> vqmmc. In mmc_power_up() I see that it sets the initial voltage as: >> >> host->ios.vdd = fls(ocr) - 1; > That's because we would like to supports as many cards as possible. > The policy is based upon that some cards may not support lower > voltages, but most will support higher. > >> That actually means that we're going to pick the maximum voltage for >> vmmc (of the supported voltages). For vqmmc dw_mmc is using the >> regulator framework which (as described in my previous message) will >> pick the minimum. > Correct. I have thought this has been inside spec and choosing the > lower value would be preferred to lower power consumption. Maybe we > needs to re-visit this one more time. > > Here are some of the interesting sections in the eMMC spec: > 10.3.3 Power supply Voltages > "The VCCQ must be defined at equal to or less than VCC". > > 10.5 Bus signal levels > Push-pull mode: > Voh = 0.75 * VCCQ. (Do note, its VCCQ not VCC). > > Summary eMMC: VCCQ must be less and VCC, we should be inside spec. > > >From SD spec: > 6.6.1 Threshold Level for High Voltage Range > Voh = 0.75 * VDD. > > In worst case scenario, VDD = 3.6V and VIO = 2.7V. That gives as the > factor of 0.75, thus we are inside spec but without margins. * From eMMC4.5 spec: 1. (VDDF)vcc: Supply voltage for flash memory, which is 2.7v -- 3.3v 2. (VDD)vccq: Supply voltage for memory controller, which is 1.7v -- 1.95v and 2,7v -- 3.6v * And from RK3288 datasheet: Digtial GPIO Power(SDMMC0_VDD --> vccq) is 3.0v -- 3.6v and 1.62v - 1.98v So I think: 3.3v: (2.7v < vccq < 3.6v) && (3.0v < vccq < 3.6v) ==> (3.0v < vccq < 3.6v) 1.8v: (1.7v < vccq < 1.95v) && (1.62v < vccq < 1.98v) ==> (1.7v < vccq < 1.95v) and (2.7v < vcc < 3.3v) * And according to our hardware engineer: All of supply voltage must have +/- 10% cushion. * And we have found in some worse card that there is 200mv voltage collapse when these card is insert. So I think the best resolution is that vcc and vccq is configurable int dt table. >> 2. Several people I've talked to have expressed concerns that our >> minimum value is 2.7V. Apparently that's really on the edge and makes >> EEs a little nervous. The quick sample of cards sitting on my desk >> shows that they seem to claim 0x00ff8000, which doesn't include 2.7V. > 0x00ff8000 states what values of VDD levels the device supports. Not VIO. > >> >> Both of the above make me feel like dw_mmc should try its best to pick >> a value for vqmmc that is closest to the value of vmmc (and >= 2.7V). >> That also happens to make us work exactly like hosts where vmmc and >> vqmmc are supplied by the same supply. > I do see your point. And I agree that it would be nice to achieve > something like this. > > The question is how to do this. For sure, we need to involve the mmc > core to handle this correctly. > > Kind regards > Uffe > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/