Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
From:   Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:52:59 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: qcm6490-fairphone-fp5: Enable UFS
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20230929-fp5-ufs-v1-1-122941e28b06@fairphone.com>
To:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com>
Cc:     ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht, phone-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
Precedence: bulk

Enable the UFS phy and controller so that we can access the internal
storage of the phone.

At the same time we need to bump the minimum voltage used for UFS VCC,
otherwise it doesn't initialize properly. The new range is taken from
the vcc-voltage-level property downstream.

See also the following link for more information about the VCCQ/VCCQ2:
https://gerrit-public.fairphone.software/plugins/gitiles/kernel/msm-extra/devicetree/+/1590a3739e7dc29d2597307881553236d492f188/fp5/yupik-idp-pm7250b.dtsi#207

Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
---
I'm not 100% convinced about the regulator range change. For sure with
the original voltage range the UFS fails to initialize, but looking at
downstream kernel during runtime (debugfs) we see the VCC voltage
switches between 2.4V (idle?) and 2.952V (active?). But even with this
change in mainline the regulator would always stay at 2.504V which is
for sure lower than the downstream operating voltage of 2.952V. Behavior
wise I don't see a difference between ~2.5V and ~2.9V.

Should I just constrain the regulator here to min=max=2.952V? Or just
say it's okay as-is?

Depends on: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230927081858.15961-1-quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com/
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-fairphone-fp5.dts | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-fairphone-fp5.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-fairphone-fp5.dts
index 2de0b8c26c35..fea7639fc0bc 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-fairphone-fp5.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-fairphone-fp5.dts
@@ -182,8 +182,9 @@ vreg_l6b: ldo6 {
 		};
 
 		vreg_l7b: ldo7 {
-			regulator-min-microvolt = <2400000>;
-			regulator-max-microvolt = <3544000>;
+			/* Constrained for UFS VCC */
+			regulator-min-microvolt = <2504000>;
+			regulator-max-microvolt = <2952000>;
 			regulator-initial-mode = <RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_HPM>;
 		};
 
@@ -632,6 +633,28 @@ bluetooth: bluetooth {
 	};
 };
 
+&ufs_mem_hc {
+	reset-gpios = <&tlmm 175 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
+
+	vcc-supply = <&vreg_l7b>;
+	vcc-max-microamp = <800000>;
+	/*
+	 * Technically l9b enables an eLDO (supplied by s1b) which then powers
+	 * VCCQ2 of the UFS.
+	 */
+	vccq-supply = <&vreg_l9b>;
+	vccq-max-microamp = <900000>;
+
+	status = "okay";
+};
+
+&ufs_mem_phy {
+	vdda-phy-supply = <&vreg_l10c>;
+	vdda-pll-supply = <&vreg_l6b>;
+
+	status = "okay";
+};
+
 &usb_1 {
 	status = "okay";
 };

---
base-commit: d85348daa4407216e47198ed35a43a66883edab6
change-id: 20230929-fp5-ufs-e2c0e21a0142

Best regards,
-- 
Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>