lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mmc: tegra: Write xfer_mode, CMD regs in together
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Rhyland Klein <rklein@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On 1/28/2015 1:06 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Rhyland Klein <rklein@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>> From: Pavan Kunapuli <pkunapuli@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> If there is a gap between xfer mode and command register writes,
>>> tegra SDMMC controller can sometimes issue a spurious command before
>>> the CMD register is written. To avoid this, these two registers need
>>> to be written together in a single write operation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Kunapuli <pkunapuli@nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rhyland Klein <rklein@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-tegra.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-tegra.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-tegra.c
>>> index 59797106af93..3d34de47e57e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-tegra.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-tegra.c
>>> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
>>> #define NVQUIRK_DISABLE_SDR50 BIT(3)
>>> #define NVQUIRK_DISABLE_SDR104 BIT(4)
>>> #define NVQUIRK_DISABLE_DDR50 BIT(5)
>>> +#define NVQUIRK_SHADOW_XFER_MODE_REG BIT(6)
>>>
>>> struct sdhci_tegra_soc_data {
>>> const struct sdhci_pltfm_data *pdata;
>>> @@ -67,6 +68,32 @@ static u16 tegra_sdhci_readw(struct sdhci_host *host, int reg)
>>> return readw(host->ioaddr + reg);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void tegra_sdhci_writew(struct sdhci_host *host, u16 val, int reg)
>>> +{
>>> + struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
>>> + struct sdhci_tegra *tegra_host = pltfm_host->priv;
>>> + const struct sdhci_tegra_soc_data *soc_data = tegra_host->soc_data;
>>> +
>>> + if (soc_data->nvquirks * NVQUIRK_SHADOW_XFER_MODE_REG) {
>>
>> Isn't the '*' supposed to be a '&' here?
>
> Yah .. not sure how that happened, but it should be '&' good catch.
>
>>
>>> + switch (reg) {
>>> + case SDHCI_TRANSFER_MODE:
>>> + /*
>>> + * Postpone this write, we must do it together with a
>>> + * command write that is down below.
>>> + */
>>> + pltfm_host->xfer_mode_shadow = val;
>>> + return;
>>> + case SDHCI_COMMAND:
>>> + writel((val << 16) | pltfm_host->xfer_mode_shadow,
>>> + host->ioaddr + SDHCI_TRANSFER_MODE);
>>> + pltfm_host->xfer_mode_shadow = 0;
>>
>> That last line is probably not needed and could actually be harmful -
>> if we try to write SDHCI_COMMAND twice in a raw without a write to
>> SDHCI_TRANSFER_MODE in between, the zero will overwrite the previous
>> value of SDHCI_TRANSFER_MODE.
>
> True, will remove it.
>
>>
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + writew(val, host->ioaddr + reg);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static void tegra_sdhci_writel(struct sdhci_host *host, u32 val, int reg)
>>> {
>>> struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
>>> @@ -147,6 +174,7 @@ static void tegra_sdhci_set_bus_width(struct sdhci_host *host, int bus_width)
>>> static const struct sdhci_ops tegra_sdhci_ops = {
>>> .get_ro = tegra_sdhci_get_ro,
>>> .read_w = tegra_sdhci_readw,
>>> + .write_w = tegra_sdhci_writew,
>>> .write_l = tegra_sdhci_writel,
>>> .set_clock = sdhci_set_clock,
>>> .set_bus_width = tegra_sdhci_set_bus_width,
>>> @@ -201,7 +229,8 @@ static struct sdhci_tegra_soc_data soc_data_tegra114 = {
>>> .pdata = &sdhci_tegra114_pdata,
>>> .nvquirks = NVQUIRK_DISABLE_SDR50 |
>>> NVQUIRK_DISABLE_DDR50 |
>>> - NVQUIRK_DISABLE_SDR104,
>>> + NVQUIRK_DISABLE_SDR104 |
>>> + NVQUIRK_SHADOW_XFER_MODE_REG,
>>> };
>>
>> Since this only applies to Tegra114 (?), I wonder whether it would not
>> be better to have a dedicated tegra114_sdhci_ops that implements
>> tegra_sdhci_writew, and use it only in tegra_sdhci_writew. That way
>> you could get rid of the NVQUIRK_SHADOW_XFER_MODE_REG and the test for
>> it in tegra_sdhci_writew(), and chips prior to Tegra114 will not have
>> to needlessly check for it every time they write a register.
>
> The reason I did it this way, is that this doesn't explicitly just apply
> to T114. It actually applies to T114, T124 and T132. In that case, I
> think it makes sense to keep the QUIRK and I can update the commit
> description to reflect that.

All the same, I don't see what advantage we have checking for that
condition for every single write while we could simply set the right
function to use at probe time?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-09 07:41    [W:0.065 / U:1.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site