Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200420161831.5043-1-ludovic.barre@st.com> <CAPDyKFqC3fdnQ9CMYhS-=5MiCET=r5Az2S5oFoA2v1gdDeGO3w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFqC3fdnQ9CMYhS-=5MiCET=r5Az2S5oFoA2v1gdDeGO3w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:38:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFrHcoVd=GKPB70gOFE8STOnTJrJbcZzE_DEgFWh1Vhszg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmci_sdmmc: fix power on issue due to pwr_reg initialization
To:     Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Srini Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 11:25, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 18:18, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch fix a power-on issue, and avoid to retry the power sequence.
> >
> > In power off sequence: sdmmc must set pwr_reg in "power-cycle" state
> > (value 0x2), to prevent the card from being supplied through the signal
> > lines (all the lines are driven low).
> >
> > In power on sequence: when the power is stable, sdmmc must set pwr_reg
> > in "power-off" state (value 0x0) to drive all signal to high before to
> > set "power-on".
>
> Just a question to gain further understanding.
>
> Let's assume that the controller is a power-on state, because it's
> been initialized by the boot loader. When the mmc core then starts the
> power-on sequence (not doing a power-off first), would $subject patch
> then cause the
> MMCIPOWER to remain as is, or is it going to be overwritten?
>
> I am a little worried that we may start to rely on boot loader
> conditions, which isn't really what we want either...
>
> >
> > To avoid writing the same value to the power register several times, this
> > register is cached by the pwr_reg variable. At probe pwr_reg is initialized
> > to 0 by kzalloc of mmc_alloc_host.
> >
> > Like pwr_reg value is 0 at probing, the power on sequence fail because
> > the "power-off" state is not writes (value 0x0) and the lines
> > remain drive to low.
> >
> > This patch initializes "pwr_reg" variable with power register value.
> > This it done in sdmmc variant init to not disturb default mmci behavior.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com>
>
> Besides the comment, the code and the approach seems reasonable to me.

Another related question. I just realized why you probably haven't set
.pwrreg_nopower for the variant_stm32_sdmmc and variant_stm32_sdmmcv2.

I guess it's because you need a slightly different way to restore the
context of MMCIPOWER register at ->runtime_resume(), rather than just
re-writing it with the saved register values. Is this something that
you are looking into as well?

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe