lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V6 16/21] soc/tegra: pmc: Add pmc wake support for tegra210
From
Date
23.07.2019 6:09, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>
> On 7/22/19 8:03 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 23.07.2019 4:52, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>>> On 7/22/19 6:41 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 23.07.2019 4:08, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>>>>> 23.07.2019 3:58, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>>>>>> 21.07.2019 22:40, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>>>>>>> This patch implements PMC wakeup sequence for Tegra210 and defines
>>>>>>> common used RTC alarm wake event.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>   drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c | 111
>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>   1 file changed, 111 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c b/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c
>>>>>>> index 91c84d0e66ae..c556f38874e1 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c
>>>>>>> @@ -57,6 +57,12 @@
>>>>>>>   #define  PMC_CNTRL_SYSCLK_OE        BIT(11) /* system clock
>>>>>>> enable */
>>>>>>>   #define  PMC_CNTRL_SYSCLK_POLARITY    BIT(10) /* sys clk
>>>>>>> polarity */
>>>>>>>   #define  PMC_CNTRL_MAIN_RST        BIT(4)
>>>>>>> +#define  PMC_CNTRL_LATCH_WAKEUPS    BIT(5)
>>>>> Please follow the TRM's bits naming.
>>>>>
>>>>> PMC_CNTRL_LATCHWAKE_EN
>>>>>
>>>>>>> +#define PMC_WAKE_MASK            0x0c
>>>>>>> +#define PMC_WAKE_LEVEL            0x10
>>>>>>> +#define PMC_WAKE_STATUS            0x14
>>>>>>> +#define PMC_SW_WAKE_STATUS        0x18
>>>>>>>     #define DPD_SAMPLE            0x020
>>>>>>>   #define  DPD_SAMPLE_ENABLE        BIT(0)
>>>>>>> @@ -87,6 +93,11 @@
>>>>>>>     #define PMC_SCRATCH41            0x140
>>>>>>>   +#define PMC_WAKE2_MASK            0x160
>>>>>>> +#define PMC_WAKE2_LEVEL            0x164
>>>>>>> +#define PMC_WAKE2_STATUS        0x168
>>>>>>> +#define PMC_SW_WAKE2_STATUS        0x16c
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>   #define PMC_SENSOR_CTRL            0x1b0
>>>>>>>   #define  PMC_SENSOR_CTRL_SCRATCH_WRITE    BIT(2)
>>>>>>>   #define  PMC_SENSOR_CTRL_ENABLE_RST    BIT(1)
>>>>>>> @@ -1922,6 +1933,55 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops
>>>>>>> tegra_pmc_irq_domain_ops = {
>>>>>>>       .alloc = tegra_pmc_irq_alloc,
>>>>>>>   };
>>>>>>>   +static int tegra210_pmc_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *data,
>>>>>>> unsigned int on)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +    struct tegra_pmc *pmc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
>>>>>>> +    unsigned int offset, bit;
>>>>>>> +    u32 value;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    if (data->hwirq == ULONG_MAX)
>>>>>>> +        return 0;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    offset = data->hwirq / 32;
>>>>>>> +    bit = data->hwirq % 32;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    /*
>>>>>>> +     * Latch wakeups to SW_WAKE_STATUS register to capture events
>>>>>>> +     * that would not make it into wakeup event register during
>>>>>>> LP0 exit.
>>>>>>> +     */
>>>>>>> +    value = tegra_pmc_readl(pmc, PMC_CNTRL);
>>>>>>> +    value |= PMC_CNTRL_LATCH_WAKEUPS;
>>>>>>> +    tegra_pmc_writel(pmc, value, PMC_CNTRL);
>>>>>>> +    udelay(120);
>>>>>> Why it takes so much time to latch the values? Shouldn't some
>>>>>> status-bit
>>>>>> be polled for the completion of latching?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this register-write really getting buffered in the PMC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +    value &= ~PMC_CNTRL_LATCH_WAKEUPS;
>>>>>>> +    tegra_pmc_writel(pmc, value, PMC_CNTRL);
>>>>>>> +    udelay(120);
>>>>>> 120 usecs to remove latching, really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +    tegra_pmc_writel(pmc, 0, PMC_SW_WAKE_STATUS);
>>>>>>> +    tegra_pmc_writel(pmc, 0, PMC_SW_WAKE2_STATUS);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    tegra_pmc_writel(pmc, 0, PMC_WAKE_STATUS);
>>>>>>> +    tegra_pmc_writel(pmc, 0, PMC_WAKE2_STATUS);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    /* enable PMC wake */
>>>>>>> +    if (data->hwirq >= 32)
>>>>>>> +        offset = PMC_WAKE2_MASK;
>>>>>>> +    else
>>>>>>> +        offset = PMC_WAKE_MASK;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    value = tegra_pmc_readl(pmc, offset);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    if (on)
>>>>>>> +        value |= 1 << bit;
>>>>>>> +    else
>>>>>>> +        value &= ~(1 << bit);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    tegra_pmc_writel(pmc, value, offset);
>>>>>> Why the latching is done *before* writing into the WAKE registers?
>>>>>> What
>>>>>> it is latching then?
>>>>> I'm looking at the TRM doc and it says that latching should be done
>>>>> *after* writing to the WAKE_MASK / LEVEL registers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly it says that it's enough to do:
>>>>>
>>>>> value = tegra_pmc_readl(pmc, PMC_CNTRL);
>>>>> value |= PMC_CNTRL_LATCH_WAKEUPS;
>>>>> tegra_pmc_writel(pmc, value, PMC_CNTRL);
>>>>>
>>>>> in order to latch. There is no need for the delay and to remove the
>>>>> "LATCHWAKE_EN" bit, it should be a oneshot action.
>>>> Although, no. TRM says "stops latching on transition from 1
>>>> to 0 (sequence - set to 1,set to 0)", so it's not a oneshot action.
>>>>
>>>> Have you tested this code at all? I'm wondering how it happens to work
>>>> without a proper latching.
>>> Yes, ofcourse its tested and this sequence to do transition is
>>> recommendation from Tegra designer.
>>> Will check if TRM doesn't have update properly or will re-confirm
>>> internally on delay time...
>>>
>>> On any of the wake event PMC wakeup happens and WAKE_STATUS register
>>> will have bits set for all events that triggered wake.
>>> After wakeup PMC doesn't update SW_WAKE_STATUS register as per PMC
>>> design.
>>> SW latch register added in design helps to provide a way to capture
>>> those events that happen right during wakeup time and didnt make it to
>>> SW_WAKE_STATUS register.
>>> So before next suspend entry, latching all prior wake events into SW
>>> WAKE_STATUS and then clearing them.
>> I'm now wondering whether the latching cold be turned ON permanently
>> during of the PMC's probe, for simplicity.
> latching should be done on suspend-resume cycle as wake events gets
> generates on every suspend-resume cycle.

You're saying that PMC "doesn't update SW_WAKE_STATUS" after wake-up,
then I don't quite understand what's the point of disabling the latching
at all.

>>> LATCHWAKE_EN - When set, enables latching and stops latching on
>>> transition from 1 to 0
>>> There is recommendation of min 120uSec for this transition to stop
>>> latching. Will double-check why 120uSec
>> Yes, please check.
>>
>>>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>   static int tegra186_pmc_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *data,
>>>>>>> unsigned int on)
>>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>>       struct tegra_pmc *pmc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
>>>>>>> @@ -1954,6 +2014,49 @@ static int
>>>>>>> tegra186_pmc_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *data, unsigned int on)
>>>>>>>       return 0;
>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>   +static int tegra210_pmc_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *data,
>>>>>>> unsigned int type)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +    struct tegra_pmc *pmc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
>>>>>>> +    unsigned int offset, bit;
>>>>>>> +    u32 value;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    if (data->hwirq == ULONG_MAX)
>>>>>>> +        return 0;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    offset = data->hwirq / 32;
>>>>>>> +    bit = data->hwirq % 32;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    if (data->hwirq >= 32)
>>>>>>> +        offset = PMC_WAKE2_LEVEL;
>>>>>>> +    else
>>>>>>> +        offset = PMC_WAKE_LEVEL;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    value = tegra_pmc_readl(pmc, offset);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    switch (type) {
>>>>>>> +    case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING:
>>>>>>> +    case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH:
>>>>>>> +        value |= 1 << bit;
>>>>>>> +        break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING:
>>>>>>> +    case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW:
>>>>>>> +        value &= ~(1 << bit);
>>>>>>> +        break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING | IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING:
>>>>>>> +        value ^= 1 << bit;
>>>>>>> +        break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    default:
>>>>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    tegra_pmc_writel(pmc, value, offset);
>>>>>> Shouldn't the WAKE_LEVEL be latched as well?
>>> WAKE_LEVELs dont need any latch as they are the levels SW sets for wake
>>> trigger and they are not status
>> Okay.
>>
>> [snip]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-23 05:27    [W:0.134 / U:0.592 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site