lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH V3 15/21] mmc: sdhci: UHS-II support, modify set_power() to handle vdd2
From
Date
On 15/09/20 9:24 am, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Adrain,
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 09:36:02AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 14/09/20 8:45 am, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>> Adrian,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 05:11:18PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/20 2:11 pm, Ben Chuang wrote:
>>>>> From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> VDD2 is used for powering UHS-II interface.
>>>>> Modify sdhci_set_power_and_bus_voltage(), sdhci_set_power_noreg()
>>>>> and sdhci_set_power_noreg() to handle VDD2.
>>>>
>>>> vdd2 is always 1.8 V and I suspect there may never be support for anything
>>>> else, so we should start with 1.8 V only.
>>>
>>> What do you mean here?
>>> You don't want to add an extra argument, vdd2, to sdhci_set_power().
>>> Correct?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>>
>>>> Also can we create uhs2_set_power_reg() and uhs2_set_power_noreg() and use
>>>> the existing ->set_power() callback
>>>
>>> Again what do you expect here?
>>>
>>> Do you want to see any platform-specific mmc driver who supports UHS-II
>>> to implement its own call back like:
>>
>> Not exactly. I expect there to be a common implementation in sdhci-uhs2.c
>> called sdhci_uhs2_set_power() for example, that drivers can use by setting
>> their .set_power = sdhci_uhs2_set_power. If they need platform-specific
>> code as well then their platform-specific code can call
>> sdhci_uhs2_set_power() if desired.
>>
>>>
>>> void sdhci_foo_set_power(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned char mode,
>>> unsigned short vdd)
>>> {
>>> sdhci_set_power(host, mode,vdd);
>>>
>>> /* in case that sdhci_uhs2 module is not inserted */
>>> if (!(mmc->caps & MMC_CAP_UHS2))
>>> return;
>>>
>>> /* vdd2 specific operation */
>>> if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(host->mmc->supply.vmmc2))
>>> sdhci_uhs2_set_power_noreg(host, mode);
>>> else
>>> sdhci_uhs2_set_power_reg(host, mode);
>>>
>>> /* maybe more platform-specific initialization */
>>> }
>>>
>>> struct sdhci_ops sdhci_foo_ops = {
>>> .set_power = sdhci_foo_set_power,
>>> ...
>>> }
>
> What do you think about this logic in general?
> (If necessary, read it replacing "foo" to "uhs2".)
>
> What I'm concerned about is SDHCI_POWER_CONTROL register.
> Vdd and vdd2 are controlled with corresponding bits in this register.
> It seems to be "natural" to me that vdd and vdd2 are enabled
> in a single function rather than putting them in separate ones.
>
> In particular, in the case of sdhci_set_power_noreg(), there exist a couple
> of "quirks" around writing the bits to SDHCI_POWER_CONTROL register.

We can treat UHS-II support as being for new hardware and therefore
we don't necessarily need to support old quirks. Just make sure if
a quirk is not being supported, to add a comment to that effect.

> I don't know how we should handle them if we have a separate function,
> say, sdhci_uhs2_set_power_noreg().
> Do you want to see a copy of the same logic in sdhci_uhs2_set_power_noreg()?

I would probably consider making another function that non-UHS-II
drivers do not need to care about e.g. existing drivers can keep using
sdhci_set_power_noreg() and sdhci_uhs2 can call __sdhci_set_power_noreg()

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
index 592a55a34b58..ffe54f06fe38 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
@@ -2013,8 +2013,8 @@ static void sdhci_set_power_reg(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned char mode,
sdhci_writeb(host, 0, SDHCI_POWER_CONTROL);
}

-void sdhci_set_power_noreg(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned char mode,
- unsigned short vdd)
+void __sdhci_set_power_noreg(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned char mode,
+ unsigned short vdd, u8 vdd2)
{
u8 pwr = 0;

@@ -2048,7 +2048,7 @@ void sdhci_set_power_noreg(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned char mode,
if (host->pwr == pwr)
return;

- host->pwr = pwr;
+ host->pwr = pwr | vdd2;

if (pwr == 0) {
sdhci_writeb(host, 0, SDHCI_POWER_CONTROL);
@@ -2085,6 +2085,13 @@ void sdhci_set_power_noreg(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned char mode,
mdelay(10);
}
}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__sdhci_set_power_noreg);
+
+void sdhci_set_power_noreg(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned char mode,
+ unsigned short vdd)
+{
+ __sdhci_set_power_noreg(host, mode, vdd, 0);
+}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sdhci_set_power_noreg);

void sdhci_set_power(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned char mode,
>
> -Takahiro Akashi
>
>
>>>
>>> Is this what you mean?
>>> (I'm not quite sure yet that sdhci_ush2_set_power_noreg() can be split off
>>> from sdhci_set_power_noreg().)
>>>
>>> -Takahiro Akashi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-16 08:43    [W:0.088 / U:12.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site