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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:26:37 +0530
From:   skakit@codeaurora.org
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akashast@codeaurora.org,
        rojay@codeaurora.org, msavaliy@qti.qualcomm.com,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: Add sleep pin ctrl for
 BT uart
In-Reply-To: <20200827152335.GF486007@google.com>
References: <1597931467-24268-1-git-send-email-skakit@codeaurora.org>
 <1597931467-24268-3-git-send-email-skakit@codeaurora.org>
 <20200821172215.GB486007@google.com>
 <e1738473c26de45b5c9c7c4d5963f32c@codeaurora.org>
 <20200825163820.GD486007@google.com>
 <10485f6a111c578f2e15dbcc0ceec66d@codeaurora.org>
 <20200826164011.GE486007@google.com>
 <7dd865bff20320c147706919b62788e4@codeaurora.org>
 <20200827152335.GF486007@google.com>
Message-ID: <4da14cd3369e2863fb39e2fdd1b95500@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Matthias,

On 2020-08-27 20:53, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Hi Satya,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 08:37:33PM +0530, skakit@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> Hi Matthias,
>> 
>> On 2020-08-26 22:10, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>> > Hi Satya,
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 09:35:15PM +0530, skakit@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> > > Hi Matthias,
>> > >
>> > > On 2020-08-25 22:08, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 06:42:28PM +0530, skakit@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> > > > > On 2020-08-21 22:52, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 07:21:06PM +0530, satya priya wrote:
>> > > > > > > Add sleep pin ctrl for BT uart, and also change the bias
>> > > > > > > configuration to match Bluetooth module.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: satya priya <skakit@codeaurora.org>
>> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Akash Asthana <akashast@codeaurora.org>
>> > > > > > > ---
>> > > > > > > Changes in V2:
>> > > > > > >  - This patch adds sleep state for BT UART. Newly added in V2.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Changes in V3:
>> > > > > > >  - Remove "output-high" for TX from both sleep and default states
>> > > > > > >    as it is not required. Configure pull-up for TX in sleep state.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts | 54
>> > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts
>> > > > > > > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts
>> > > > > > > index d8b5507..806f626 100644
>> > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts
>> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts
>> > > > > > > @@ -473,20 +473,20 @@
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >  &qup_uart3_default {
>> > > > > > >  	pinconf-cts {
>> > > > > > > -		/*
>> > > > > > > -		 * Configure a pull-down on 38 (CTS) to match the pull of
>> > > > > > > -		 * the Bluetooth module.
>> > > > > > > -		 */
>> > > > > > > +		/* Configure no pull on 38 (CTS) to match Bluetooth module */
>> > > > > > >  		pins = "gpio38";
>> > > > > > > -		bias-pull-down;
>> > > > > > > -		output-high;
>> > > > > > > +		bias-disable;
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I think it should be ok in functional terms, but I don't like the
>> > > > > > rationale
>> > > > > > and also doubt the change is really needed.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If the pull is removed to match the Bluetooth module, then that sounds
>> > > > > > as
>> > > > > > if the signal was floating on the the BT side, which I think is not the
>> > > > > > case.
>> > > > > > Yes, according to the datasheet there is no pull when the BT controller
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > active, but then it drives the signal actively to either high or low.
>> > > > > > There
>> > > > > > seems to be no merit in 'matching' the Bluetooth side in this case, if
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > signal was really floating on the BT side we would definitely not want
>> > > > > > this.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > In a reply to v2 you said:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Recently on cherokee we worked with BT team and came to an agreement
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > keep no-pull from our side in order to not conflict with their pull in
>> > > > > > > any state.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > What are these conflicting pull states?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The WCN3998 datasheet has a pull-down on RTS (WCN3998 side) in reset and
>> > > > > > boot mode, and no pull in active mode. In reset and boot mode the host
>> > > > > > config with a pull down would match, and no pull in active mode doesn't
>> > > > > > conflict with the pull-down on the host UART. My understanding is that
>> > > > > > the pinconf pulls are weak pulls, so as soon as the BT chip drives its
>> > > > > > RTS the pull on the host side shouldn't matter.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > yes, I agree with you, the pinconf pulls are weak. As this is driven
>> > > > > by BT
>> > > > > SoC (pull on HOST side shouldn't matter), we are not mentioning any
>> > > > > bias
>> > > > > configuration from our side and simply putting it as no-pull, just
>> > > > > to not
>> > > > > conflict in any case. It seems that the rationale mentioned is a bit
>> > > > > confusing i will change it to clearly specify why we are configuring
>> > > > > no-pull.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Is this change actually related with wakeup support? I have the
>> > > > > > impression
>> > > > > > that multiple things are conflated in this patch. If some of the changes
>> > > > > > are just fixing/improving other things they should be in a separate
>> > > > > > patch,
>> > > > > > which could be part of this series, otherwise it's really hard to
>> > > > > > distinguish between the pieces that are actually relevant for wakeup and
>> > > > > > the rest.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Independently of whether the changes are done in a single or multiple
>> > > > > > patches, the commit log should include details on why the changes are
>> > > > > > necessary, especially when there are not explantatory comments in the
>> > > > > > DT/code itself (e.g. the removal of 'output-high', which seems correct
>> > > > > > to me, but no reason is given why it is done).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This change is not related to wakeup support, I will make it a
>> > > > > separate
>> > > > > patch, will also mention the details in commit text.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >  	};
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >  	pinconf-rts {
>> > > > > > > -		/* We'll drive 39 (RTS), so no pull */
>> > > > > > > +		/*
>> > > > > > > +		 * Configure pull-down on 39 (RTS). This is needed to avoid a
>> > > > > > > +		 * floating pin which could mislead Bluetooth controller
>> > > > > > > +		 * with UART RFR state (READY/NOT_READY).
>> > > > > > > +		 */
>> > > > > > >  		pins = "gpio39";
>> > > > > > >  		drive-strength = <2>;
>> > > > > > > -		bias-disable;
>> > > > > > > +		bias-pull-down;
>> > > > > > >  	};
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [copy of my comment on v2]
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I'm a bit at a loss here, about two things:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > RTS is an output pin controlled by the UART. IIUC if the UART port is
>> > > > > > active
>> > > > > > and hardware flow control is enabled the RTS signal is either driven to
>> > > > > > high
>> > > > > > or low, but not floating.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes, RTS is either driven high or low. HW flow control is always
>> > > > > enabled and
>> > > > > only turned off when RX FIFO is full. Whereas SW flow control is
>> > > > > controlled
>> > > > > by upper layers(serial core), also it can be enabled/disabled from
>> > > > > host by
>> > > > > calling set_mctrl.
>> > > >
>> > > > As far as I understand the above isn't entirely correct. HW flow control
>> > > > is not
>> > > > disabled when the RX FIFO is full, rather as part of HW flow control the
>> > > > hardware deasserts RTS when the FIFO is full. Software flow control
>> > > > isn't really
>> > > > relevant here, since it doesn't use RTS/CTS but uses transmission of
>> > > > special
>> > > > codes (XON/XOFF) over TX/RX.
>> > >
>> > > Here by Software flow control i meant, we can control the flow from
>> > > SW(explained below).
>> >
>> > Better don't use a term that already has well defined meaning in a
>> > given context when you refer to something else.
>> >
>> 
>> Okay.
>> 
>> > > >
>> > > > > > Now lets assume I'm wrong with the above and RTS can be floating. We
>> > > > > > only want
>> > > > > > the BT SoC to send data when the host UART is ready to receive them,
>> > > > > > right?
>> > > > > > RTS is an active low signal, hence by configuring it as a pull-down the
>> > > > > > BT
>> > > > > > SoC can send data regardless of whether the host UART actually asserts
>> > > > > > RTS,
>> > > > > > so the host UART may not be ready to receive it. I would argue that if
>> > > > > > there
>> > > > > > is really such a thing as a floating RTS signal then it should have a
>> > > > > > pull-up,
>> > > > > > to prevent the BT SoC from sending data at any time.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I'm not an expert in UART communication and pinconf, so it could be that
>> > > > > > I
>> > > > > > got something wrong, but as of now it seems to me that no pull is the
>> > > > > > correct
>> > > > > > config for RTS.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >  	pinconf-tx {
>> > > > > > > @@ -494,7 +494,43 @@
>> > > > > > >  		pins = "gpio40";
>> > > > > > >  		drive-strength = <2>;
>> > > > > > >  		bias-disable;
>> > > > > > > -		output-high;
>> > > > > > > +	};
>> > > > > > > +
>> > > > > > > +	pinconf-rx {
>> > > > > > > +		/*
>> > > > > > > +		 * Configure a pull-up on 41 (RX). This is needed to avoid
>> > > > > > > +		 * garbage data when the TX pin of the Bluetooth module is
>> > > > > > > +		 * in tri-state (module powered off or not driving the
>> > > > > > > +		 * signal yet).
>> > > > > > > +		 */
>> > > > > > > +		pins = "gpio41";
>> > > > > > > +		bias-pull-up;
>> > > > > > > +	};
>> > > > > > > +};
>> > > > > > > +
>> > > > > > > +&qup_uart3_sleep {
>> > > > > > > +	pinconf-cts {
>> > > > > > > +		/* Configure no-pull on 38 (CTS) to match Bluetooth module */
>> > > > > > > +		pins = "gpio38";
>> > > > > > > +		bias-disable;
>> > > > > > > +	};
>> > > > > > > +
>> > > > > > > +	pinconf-rts {
>> > > > > > > +		/*
>> > > > > > > +		 * Configure pull-down on 39 (RTS). This is needed to avoid a
>> > > > > > > +		 * floating pin which could mislead Bluetooth controller
>> > > > > > > +		 * with UART RFR state (READY/NOT_READY).
>> > > > > > > +		 */
>> > > > > > > +		pins = "gpio39";
>> > > > > > > +		drive-strength = <2>;
>> > > >
>> > > > just noticed this: in the sleep config all pins are in GPIO config (see
>> > > > "arm64: dts: sc7180: Add wakeup support over UART RX" from this series)
>> > > > and by default they are inputs, hence the drive-strength here is
>> > > > pointless
>> > > > IIUC.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > CTS and RX are inputs to the HOST whereas RTS and TX are outputs. We
>> > > have
>> > > added drive-strength for output pins only as they are driven by
>> > > UART(please
>> > > correct me if wrong).
>> >
>> > True, RTS and TX are outputs in UART mode, however in sleep mode the
>> > pins
>> > are (currently) configured as GPIOs and inputs (again, see "arm64: dts:
>> > sc7180: Add wakeup support over UART RX" of this series), hence the
>> > drive-strength attribute does nothing. If needed/preferred you can
>> > configure
>> > the pins as outputs and specify the desired state instead of using
>> > pulls,
>> > in that case specifying the drive strength can be useful.
>> >
>> 
>> Ok, will remove the drive-strength from sleep state.
>> 
>> > > > > > > +		bias-pull-down;
>> > > > > > > +	};
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I don't know all the details, but I have the impression that this is the
>> > > > > > relevant pull change for wakeup. From the title of the series I derive
>> > > > > > that the UART RX pin is used for signalling wakeup. A pull-down on RTS
>> > > > > > indicates the BT controller that it can always send data to wake up the
>> > > > > > host.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I think RTS in default mode should remain with no-pull (the UART is
>> > > > > > driving
>> > > > > > the signal), and then change it to pull-down in sleep mode.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As I understand from your previous comment, pinconf pulls are weak and
>> > > > > cannot override the pull of controller.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm not sure this is an absolute truth. I think there may be cases where
>> > > > the driver has to increase its drive strength..
>> > > >
>> > > > > Although pull down is configured,
>> > > > > data will be received only if host controller is ready to accept it.
>> > > > > So, we
>> > > > > want to put RTS in pull-down state(known state) instead of leaving
>> > > > > it in
>> > > > > ambiguous state i.e, no-pull(high/low).
>> > > >
>> > > > I disgress. I'm pretty sure that you want RTS to be low to make sure
>> > > > that
>> > > > the BT SoC can wake up the system by sending whatever data it has to
>> > > > send.
>> > > > It won't do that if RTS is high (e.g. because that's its floating state
>> > > > at that time). I just tried configuring a pull-up (also a known
>> > > > non-ambiguous state), and Bluetooth wakeup doesn't work with that,
>> > > > supposedly because the BT SoC/UART will wait for its CTS signal to be
>> > > > low.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > yes, you are right, we are keeping RTS low to make sure that BT SoC
>> > > can
>> > > wakeup the system by sending bytes.
>> > > My intention here was to explain below case from your comment:
>> > >
>> > > > > > RTS is an active low signal, hence by configuring it as a pull-down the
>> > > > > > BT
>> > > > > > SoC can send data regardless of whether the host UART actually asserts
>> > > > > > RTS,
>> > > > > > so the host UART may not be ready to receive it.
>> > >
>> > > 1. By default our HW flow is enabled(since we are configuring
>> > > pull-down on
>> > > RTS),and BT SoC can send data anytime.
>> > > 2. But there is a SW mechanism where we can control the flow from
>> > > software.
>> > > In that case what ever is configured to UART_MANUAL_RFR(READY or
>> > > NOT_READY)
>> > > will override the dtsi pinconf pull and the RTS/RFR line is pulled
>> > > high when
>> > > HOST is not ready(while debugging the wake up issue we came across
>> > > this).
>> >
>> > This is generally correct while the system is running, but (with the
>> > current
>> > pinconf) not when the system is suspended IIUC. When the system is in
>> > suspend
>> > the function of the UART pins is changed to GPIO, hence the UART ceases
>> > to
>> > control RTS.
>> >
>> > Otherwise how do you explain that wakeup stops working when you
>> > configure
>> > a pull-up instead of a pull-down? According to your comment the UART
>> > should
>> > be driving the RTS depending on its readyness.
>> >
>> 
>> True, I was explaining about UART mode(active case) only, in reply to 
>> your
>> previous comment:
>> 
>> > > > > > I'm not an expert in UART communication and pinconf, so it could be that
>> > > > > > I
>> > > > > > got something wrong, but as of now it seems to me that no pull is the
>> > > > > > correct
>> > > > > > config for RTS.
>> > > > > >
>> 
>> So, we can keep pull-down in Active case and in sleep state it is 
>> mandatory
>> to keep pull-down.
> 
> Keeping the pull-down in active mode should do no harm, but why do it 
> if
> it isn't needed? I think it is better to specify what is required and 
> have
> comments explaining the rationale, since there are some nitty gritty 
> details
> that may not be obvious at first as we have seen. In this sense I think 
> it's
> better to have a comment like "We drive RTS, so no pull", rather than
> "Configure a pull-down on RTS to put the pin in a defined state / match 
> sleep
> config" or similar.
> 
> If there's a good reason to have a pull I'm totally open to configure 
> it, but
> so far I haven't seen a convincing argument for it.

Okay, will configure no-pull for RTS in active state.