Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
IronPort-SDR: Y2LwGMgFzpzVntXAvUo9T5F0KssE//R/Nw+F0yZ8/gJzB7whpdfC9zUDlxxgFa9jJpxJA71dSM
 59WAsMagDU2vB/qycx03HH4zSd7gMSl1bA93lZBpQNqymI998wL3EmT5a1mujviri1FDfWBCuU
 ie3WTAx5gifKqSmjfTBGTuPp5xVXYpLgzM7FCsSBDv7LE/UqYJ5c2yOyYaZw9Op+8bxwGjcIOd
 oZ3pZdKsMr98MEptitDz5JoZJuIUS+zM/y7KxfuCHPePnOr7F9j8wwxy5n1B/BSW/nYWz36fFG
 AcI=
From:   Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@wdc.com>
To:     "cang@codeaurora.org" <cang@codeaurora.org>
CC:     Can Guo <cang@qti.qualcomm.com>,
        "asutoshd@codeaurora.org" <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>,
        "nguyenb@codeaurora.org" <nguyenb@codeaurora.org>,
        "rnayak@codeaurora.org" <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
        "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-team@android.com" <kernel-team@android.com>,
        "saravanak@google.com" <saravanak@google.com>,
        "salyzyn@google.com" <salyzyn@google.com>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Pedro Sousa <pedrom.sousa@synopsys.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/4] scsi: ufs: Update VCCQ2 and VCCQ min/max voltage
 hard codes
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 2/4] scsi: ufs: Update VCCQ2 and VCCQ min/max voltage
 hard codes
Thread-Index: AQHVncN0I4QlPQom7kOhpEw7WzhJI6eQgyQggAE7goCAALGY4A==
Date:   Tue, 19 Nov 2019 12:41:10 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR04MB699170FFA7B2DD59014374D5FC4C0@MN2PR04MB6991.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1574049061-11417-1-git-send-email-cang@qti.qualcomm.com>
 <1574049061-11417-3-git-send-email-cang@qti.qualcomm.com>
 <MN2PR04MB6991121D72EA8E6DF7F6258AFC4D0@MN2PR04MB6991.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <0101016e8163937a-d539c90e-6df8-454a-969a-9e33e9ef35b6-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com>
In-Reply-To: <0101016e8163937a-d539c90e-6df8-454a-969a-9e33e9ef35b6-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
wdcipoutbound: EOP-TRUE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5d1796c4-a4f9-451b-4bfe-08d76cedc190
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Nov 2019 12:41:10.4900
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: b61c8803-16f3-4c35-9b17-6f65f441df86
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: GXKThFjCwlFs2WvCbtNKZexeGM2Ayk1z82MYPe3PQlEsxA3wF5dL8vIERar55i8uqAED1OxrEmJvjOJJjDTh8A==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR04MB5999
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

>=20
> On 2019-11-18 15:15, Avri Altman wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
> >>
> >> Per UFS 3.0 JEDEC standard, the VCCQ2 min voltage is 1.7v and the
> >> VCCQ voltage range is 1.14v ~ 1.26v. Update their hard codes
> >> accordingly to make sure they work in a safe range compliant for ver
> >> 1.0/2.0/2.1/3.0 UFS devices.
> > So to keep it safe, we need to use largest range:
> > min_uV =3D min over all spec ranges, and max_uV =3D max over all spec
> > ranges.
> > Meaning leave it as it is if we want to be backward compatible with
> > UFS1.0.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Avri
> >
>=20
> Hi Avri,
>=20
> Sorry I don't quite follow you here.
> Leaving it as it is means for UFS2.1 devices, when boot up, if we call
> regulator_set_voltage(1.65, 1.95) to setup its VCCQ2,
> regulator_set_voltage() will
> give you 1.65v on VCCQ2 if the voltage level of this regulator is wider, =
say (1.60,
> 1.95).
> Meaning you will finally set 1.65v to VCCQ2. But 1.65v is out of spec for=
 UFS
> v2.1 as it requires min voltage to be 1.7v on VCCQ2. So, the smallest ran=
ge is
> safe.
> Of course, in real board design, the regulator's voltage level is limited=
/designed
> by power team to be in a safe range, say (1.8, 1.92), so that calling
> regulator_set_voltage(1.65, 1.95) still gives you 1.8v. But it does not m=
ean the
> current hard codes are compliant for all UFS devices.
You are correct - the narrowest the range the better - as long as you don't=
 cross the limits of previous spec.
So changing 1.1 -> 1.14  and 1.65 -> 1.7 is fine.
While at it, Vccq max in UFS3.0 is 1.26, why not change 1.3 -> 1.26, like y=
ou indicated in your commit log?

Thanks,
Avri

>=20
> Best Regards,
> Can Guo.
>=20
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs.h | 4 ++--
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs.h index
> >> 385bac8..9df4f4d
> >> 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs.h
> >> @@ -500,9 +500,9 @@ struct ufs_query_res {
> >>  #define UFS_VREG_VCC_MAX_UV       3600000 /* uV */
> >>  #define UFS_VREG_VCC_1P8_MIN_UV    1700000 /* uV */
> >>  #define UFS_VREG_VCC_1P8_MAX_UV    1950000 /* uV */
> >> -#define UFS_VREG_VCCQ_MIN_UV      1100000 /* uV */
> >> +#define UFS_VREG_VCCQ_MIN_UV      1140000 /* uV */
> >>  #define UFS_VREG_VCCQ_MAX_UV      1300000 /* uV */
> >> -#define UFS_VREG_VCCQ2_MIN_UV     1650000 /* uV */
> >> +#define UFS_VREG_VCCQ2_MIN_UV     1700000 /* uV */
> >>  #define UFS_VREG_VCCQ2_MAX_UV     1950000 /* uV */
> >>
> >>  /*
> >> --
> >> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
> >> Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project