| Message ID | 1518415278-59062-2-git-send-email-vviswana@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Delegated to: | Andy Gross |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@codeaurora.org> wrote: > During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device > can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of > platform device. > > Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@codeaurora.org> > --- > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > index c283291..5c23e92 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ > #include <linux/iopoll.h> > > #include "sdhci-pltfm.h" > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after the local include? > #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50 > #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28 > @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@ > #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19) > #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19) > > +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25) > +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26) > + Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field, so I'd have expected 0 and 1. > #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130 > #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16) > #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17) > @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host { > u32 curr_io_level; > wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait; > bool pwr_irq_flag; > + u32 caps_0; > }; > > static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct sdhci_host *host, > @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 val, int reg) > sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type); > } > > +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host) > +{ > + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc; > + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc; > + int i, count; > + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV; > + > + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) { > + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply); > + if (count < 0) > + return count; > + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { > + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i); > + if (vdd_uV <= 0) > + continue; > + if (vdd_uV > 2700000) > + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT; > + if (vdd_uV < 1950000) > + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT; > + } Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()? Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled / disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case. > + } How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2? ...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"? > + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps; > + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc), > + __func__, caps); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > + > static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = { > { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" }, > {}, > @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > ret = sdhci_add_host(host); > if (ret) > goto pm_runtime_disable; > + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host); > + if (ret) > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator caps: %d\n", > + __func__, ret); Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that gives an idea of where we are. > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev); > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev); > -- > Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 2018-03-02 10:23 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath > <vviswana@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device >> can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of >> platform device. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@codeaurora.org> >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >> index c283291..5c23e92 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ >> #include <linux/iopoll.h> >> >> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h" >> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > > This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after > the local include? > > >> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50 >> #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28 >> @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@ >> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19) >> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19) >> >> +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25) >> +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26) >> + > > Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field, > so I'd have expected 0 and 1. > > >> #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130 >> #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16) >> #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17) >> @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host { >> u32 curr_io_level; >> wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait; >> bool pwr_irq_flag; >> + u32 caps_0; >> }; >> >> static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct sdhci_host *host, >> @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 val, int reg) >> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type); >> } >> >> +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host) >> +{ >> + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc; >> + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc; >> + int i, count; >> + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV; >> + >> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) { >> + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply); >> + if (count < 0) >> + return count; >> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { >> + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i); >> + if (vdd_uV <= 0) >> + continue; >> + if (vdd_uV > 2700000) >> + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT; >> + if (vdd_uV < 1950000) >> + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT; >> + } > > Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than > open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it > was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a > voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from > mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()? > > > Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending > up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled > / disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their > device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a > warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it > depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case. Both, initialize it to sane value and print something. This way at least you have a good chance of booting and not hard hanging and you are given a reasonable message indicating what needs to be fixed. -jeremy > > >> + } > > How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it > important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2? > ...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure > you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"? > > >> + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps; >> + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc), >> + __func__, caps); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> + >> static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = { >> { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" }, >> {}, >> @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> ret = sdhci_add_host(host); >> if (ret) >> goto pm_runtime_disable; >> + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host); >> + if (ret) >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator caps: %d\n", >> + __func__, ret); > > Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that > gives an idea of where we are. > > >> >> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev); >> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev); >> -- >> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. >> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Dough, Jeremy, On 3/3/2018 4:38 AM, Jeremy McNicoll wrote: > On 2018-03-02 10:23 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath >> <vviswana@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device >>> can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of >>> platform device. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@codeaurora.org> >>> --- >>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>> index c283291..5c23e92 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ >>> #include <linux/iopoll.h> >>> >>> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h" >>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> >> >> This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after >> the local include? >> >> >>> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50 >>> #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28 >>> @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@ >>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19) >>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19) >>> >>> +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25) >>> +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26) >>> + >> >> Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field, >> so I'd have expected 0 and 1. >> >> Yes, these bits are the same corresponding to the capabilities in the Capabilities Register (offset 0x40). The bit positions become important when capabilities register doesn't show support to some voltages, but we can support those voltages. At that time, we will have to fake capabilities. The changes for those are currently not yet pushed up. >>> #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130 >>> #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16) >>> #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17) >>> @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host { >>> u32 curr_io_level; >>> wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait; >>> bool pwr_irq_flag; >>> + u32 caps_0; >>> }; >>> >>> static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct >>> sdhci_host *host, >>> @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host >>> *host, u8 val, int reg) >>> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type); >>> } >>> >>> +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host >>> *msm_host) >>> +{ >>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc; >>> + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc; >>> + int i, count; >>> + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV; >>> + >>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) { >>> + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply); >>> + if (count < 0) >>> + return count; >>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { >>> + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i); >>> + if (vdd_uV <= 0) >>> + continue; >>> + if (vdd_uV > 2700000) >>> + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT; >>> + if (vdd_uV < 1950000) >>> + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT; >>> + } >> >> Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than >> open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it >> was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a >> voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from >> mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()? >> >> regulator_is_supported_voltage() checks for a range and it also uses regulator_list_voltage() internally. regulator_list_voltage() is also an exported API for use by drivers AFAIK. Please correct if it is not. >> Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending >> up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled >> / disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their >> device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a >> warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it >> depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case. > > Both, initialize it to sane value and print something. This way at > least you have a good chance of booting and not hard hanging and you > are given a reasonable message indicating what needs to be fixed. > > -jeremy > >> >> >>> + } >> >> How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it >> important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2? >> ...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure >> you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"? >> >> Thanks for the suggestion. If the regulators exit and doesn't list the voltages, then I believe initialization itself will not happen. We will not have any available ocr and in sdhci_setup_host it should fail. But these enhancements can be incorporated. Since this patch is already acknowledged, I will incorporate these changes in a subsequent patch. >>> + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps; >>> + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc), >>> + __func__, caps); >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> + >>> static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = { >>> { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" }, >>> {}, >>> @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct >>> platform_device *pdev) >>> ret = sdhci_add_host(host); >>> if (ret) >>> goto pm_runtime_disable; >>> + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host); >>> + if (ret) >>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator >>> caps: %d\n", >>> + __func__, ret); >> >> Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that >> gives an idea of where we are. >> dev_err() doesn't give information of where it is getting called. >> >>> >>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev); >>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev); >>> -- >>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation >>> Center, Inc. >>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a >>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Thanks, Vijay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi, On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Dough, Jeremy, > > > On 3/3/2018 4:38 AM, Jeremy McNicoll wrote: >> >> On 2018-03-02 10:23 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath >>> <vviswana@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device >>>> can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of >>>> platform device. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@codeaurora.org> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>>> index c283291..5c23e92 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ >>>> #include <linux/iopoll.h> >>>> >>>> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h" >>>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> >>> >>> >>> This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after >>> the local include? >>> >>> >>>> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50 >>>> #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28 >>>> @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@ >>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19) >>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19) >>>> >>>> +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25) >>>> +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26) >>>> + >>> >>> >>> Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field, >>> so I'd have expected 0 and 1. >>> >>> > > Yes, these bits are the same corresponding to the capabilities in the > Capabilities Register (offset 0x40). The bit positions become important when > capabilities register doesn't show support to some voltages, but we can > support those voltages. At that time, we will have to fake capabilities. The > changes for those are currently not yet pushed up. > > >>>> #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130 >>>> #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16) >>>> #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17) >>>> @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host { >>>> u32 curr_io_level; >>>> wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait; >>>> bool pwr_irq_flag; >>>> + u32 caps_0; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct sdhci_host >>>> *host, >>>> @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host >>>> *host, u8 val, int reg) >>>> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type); >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host >>>> *msm_host) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc; >>>> + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc; >>>> + int i, count; >>>> + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV; >>>> + >>>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) { >>>> + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply); >>>> + if (count < 0) >>>> + return count; >>>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { >>>> + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i); >>>> + if (vdd_uV <= 0) >>>> + continue; >>>> + if (vdd_uV > 2700000) >>>> + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT; >>>> + if (vdd_uV < 1950000) >>>> + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT; >>>> + } >>> >>> >>> Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than >>> open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it >>> was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a >>> voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from >>> mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()? >>> >>> > > regulator_is_supported_voltage() checks for a range and it also uses > regulator_list_voltage() internally. regulator_list_voltage() is also an > exported API for use by drivers AFAIK. Please correct if it is not. Sure, regulator_list_voltage() is valid to call. I'm not saying that your code is wrong or violates abstractions, just that it's essentially re-implementing regulator_is_supported_voltage() for very little gain. Calling regulator_is_supported_voltage() is better because: 1. In theory, it should generate less code. Sure, it might loop twice with the current implementation of regulator_is_supported_voltage(), but for a non-time-critical section like this smaller code is likely better than faster code (decreases kernel size / uses up less cache space, etc). 2. If regulator_is_supported_voltage() is ever improved to be more efficient you'll get that improvement automatically. If someone happened to source vqmmc from a PWM regulator, for instance, trying to enumerate all voltages like this would be a disaster. 3. Code will be simpler to understand. You can replace your whole loop with: if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 1700000, 1950000)) caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 2700000, 3600000)) caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT >>> Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending >>> up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled >>> / disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their >>> device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a >>> warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it >>> depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case. >> >> >> Both, initialize it to sane value and print something. This way at >> least you have a good chance of booting and not hard hanging and you >> are given a reasonable message indicating what needs to be fixed. >> >> -jeremy >> >>> >>> >>>> + } >>> >>> >>> How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it >>> important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2? >>> ...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure >>> you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"? >>> >>> > > Thanks for the suggestion. If the regulators exit and doesn't list the > voltages, then I believe initialization itself will not happen. We will not > have any available ocr and in sdhci_setup_host it should fail. > But these enhancements can be incorporated. Since this patch is already > acknowledged, I will incorporate these changes in a subsequent patch. It's already acknowledged? I saw that your RFC was acknowledged by Adrian Hunter but then you didn't include that tag in the posting of v2, so I assumed for some reason it no longer applied. If you're thinking that Ulf would be the one to apply this patch, he probably doesn't know that it's Acked either. Perhaps Adrian or Ulf can give direction for how they see this patch proceeding. >>>> + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps; >>>> + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc), >>>> + __func__, caps); >>>> + >>>> + return 0; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> + >>>> static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = { >>>> { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" }, >>>> {}, >>>> @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device >>>> *pdev) >>>> ret = sdhci_add_host(host); >>>> if (ret) >>>> goto pm_runtime_disable; >>>> + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host); >>>> + if (ret) >>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator caps: >>>> %d\n", >>>> + __func__, ret); >>> >>> >>> Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that >>> gives an idea of where we are. >>> > > dev_err() doesn't give information of where it is getting called. It gives you the driver and the error message should be unique to the driver and easy to find. Including "__func__ in messages like this is discouraged unless you are in a context where you somehow can't get access to the device pointer. I suppose ultimately it's up the the maintainer for individual cases but overall I've seen this to be a consistently applied rule in the kernel. In any case, why would this particular print be special that it should include __func__ but all others (in this file, or in dev_err in general) shouldn't? >>>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev); >>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev); >>>> -- >>>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation >>>> Center, Inc. >>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a >>>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > Thanks, > Vijay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 3/7/2018 9:42 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Vijay Viswanath > <vviswana@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Hi Dough, Jeremy, >> >> >> On 3/3/2018 4:38 AM, Jeremy McNicoll wrote: >>> >>> On 2018-03-02 10:23 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath >>>> <vviswana@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device >>>>> can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of >>>>> platform device. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@codeaurora.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>>>> index c283291..5c23e92 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ >>>>> #include <linux/iopoll.h> >>>>> >>>>> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h" >>>>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after >>>> the local include? >>>> >>>> >>>>> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50 >>>>> #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28 >>>>> @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@ >>>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19) >>>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19) >>>>> >>>>> +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25) >>>>> +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26) >>>>> + >>>> >>>> >>>> Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field, >>>> so I'd have expected 0 and 1. >>>> >>>> >> >> Yes, these bits are the same corresponding to the capabilities in the >> Capabilities Register (offset 0x40). The bit positions become important when >> capabilities register doesn't show support to some voltages, but we can >> support those voltages. At that time, we will have to fake capabilities. The >> changes for those are currently not yet pushed up. >> >> >>>>> #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130 >>>>> #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16) >>>>> #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17) >>>>> @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host { >>>>> u32 curr_io_level; >>>>> wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait; >>>>> bool pwr_irq_flag; >>>>> + u32 caps_0; >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct sdhci_host >>>>> *host, >>>>> @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host >>>>> *host, u8 val, int reg) >>>>> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host >>>>> *msm_host) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc; >>>>> + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc; >>>>> + int i, count; >>>>> + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) { >>>>> + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply); >>>>> + if (count < 0) >>>>> + return count; >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { >>>>> + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i); >>>>> + if (vdd_uV <= 0) >>>>> + continue; >>>>> + if (vdd_uV > 2700000) >>>>> + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT; >>>>> + if (vdd_uV < 1950000) >>>>> + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT; >>>>> + } >>>> >>>> >>>> Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than >>>> open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it >>>> was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a >>>> voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from >>>> mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()? >>>> >>>> >> >> regulator_is_supported_voltage() checks for a range and it also uses >> regulator_list_voltage() internally. regulator_list_voltage() is also an >> exported API for use by drivers AFAIK. Please correct if it is not. > > Sure, regulator_list_voltage() is valid to call. I'm not saying that > your code is wrong or violates abstractions, just that it's > essentially re-implementing regulator_is_supported_voltage() for very > little gain. Calling regulator_is_supported_voltage() is better > because: > > 1. In theory, it should generate less code. Sure, it might loop twice > with the current implementation of regulator_is_supported_voltage(), > but for a non-time-critical section like this smaller code is likely > better than faster code (decreases kernel size / uses up less cache > space, etc). > > 2. If regulator_is_supported_voltage() is ever improved to be more > efficient you'll get that improvement automatically. If someone > happened to source vqmmc from a PWM regulator, for instance, trying to > enumerate all voltages like this would be a disaster. > > 3. Code will be simpler to understand. > > You can replace your whole loop with: > > if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 1700000, 1950000)) > caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT > if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 2700000, 3600000)) > caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT > > >>>> Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending >>>> up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled >>>> / disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their >>>> device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a >>>> warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it >>>> depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case. >>> >>> >>> Both, initialize it to sane value and print something. This way at >>> least you have a good chance of booting and not hard hanging and you >>> are given a reasonable message indicating what needs to be fixed. >>> >>> -jeremy >>> Its good to add a warning, but initializing it to some value might not be appropriate. It will be better to leave it blank and if caps doesn't have any of 1.8V/3V, better to not enable IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN. >>>> >>>> >>>>> + } >>>> >>>> >>>> How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it >>>> important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2? >>>> ...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure >>>> you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"? >>>> >>>> >> >> Thanks for the suggestion. If the regulators exit and doesn't list the >> voltages, then I believe initialization itself will not happen. We will not >> have any available ocr and in sdhci_setup_host it should fail. >> But these enhancements can be incorporated. Since this patch is already >> acknowledged, I will incorporate these changes in a subsequent patch. > > It's already acknowledged? I saw that your RFC was acknowledged by > Adrian Hunter but then you didn't include that tag in the posting of > v2, so I assumed for some reason it no longer applied. If you're > thinking that Ulf would be the one to apply this patch, he probably > doesn't know that it's Acked either. > > Perhaps Adrian or Ulf can give direction for how they see this patch proceeding. > > Since I put up V2 anyway, I will include your suggestions and put V3. My mistake, I didn't notice the ACK was for RFC. >>>>> + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps; >>>>> + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc), >>>>> + __func__, caps); >>>>> + >>>>> + return 0; >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> + >>>>> static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = { >>>>> { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" }, >>>>> {}, >>>>> @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device >>>>> *pdev) >>>>> ret = sdhci_add_host(host); >>>>> if (ret) >>>>> goto pm_runtime_disable; >>>>> + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host); >>>>> + if (ret) >>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator caps: >>>>> %d\n", >>>>> + __func__, ret); >>>> >>>> >>>> Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that >>>> gives an idea of where we are. >>>> >> >> dev_err() doesn't give information of where it is getting called. > > It gives you the driver and the error message should be unique to the > driver and easy to find. Including "__func__ in messages like this is > discouraged unless you are in a context where you somehow can't get > access to the device pointer. I suppose ultimately it's up the the > maintainer for individual cases but overall I've seen this to be a > consistently applied rule in the kernel. > > In any case, why would this particular print be special that it should > include __func__ but all others (in this file, or in dev_err in > general) shouldn't? > > >>>>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev); >>>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev); >>>>> -- >>>>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation >>>>> Center, Inc. >>>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a >>>>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> >> Thanks, >> Vijay > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Thanks, Vijay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 2018-03-19 5:32 AM, Vijay Viswanath wrote: > > > On 3/7/2018 9:42 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Vijay Viswanath >> <vviswana@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> Hi Dough, Jeremy, >>> >>> >>> On 3/3/2018 4:38 AM, Jeremy McNicoll wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2018-03-02 10:23 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath >>>>> <vviswana@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform >>>>>> device >>>>>> can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of >>>>>> platform device. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@codeaurora.org> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38 >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>>>>> b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>>>>> index c283291..5c23e92 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >>>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ >>>>>> #include <linux/iopoll.h> >>>>>> >>>>>> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h" >>>>>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is a strange sort order for this include file. Why is it after >>>>> the local include? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50 >>>>>> #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28 >>>>>> @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@ >>>>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19) >>>>>> #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19) >>>>>> >>>>>> +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25) >>>>>> +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26) >>>>>> + >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there something magical about 25 and 26? This is a new caps field, >>>>> so I'd have expected 0 and 1. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> Yes, these bits are the same corresponding to the capabilities in the >>> Capabilities Register (offset 0x40). The bit positions become >>> important when >>> capabilities register doesn't show support to some voltages, but we can >>> support those voltages. At that time, we will have to fake >>> capabilities. The >>> changes for those are currently not yet pushed up. >>> >>> >>>>>> #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130 >>>>>> #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16) >>>>>> #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17) >>>>>> @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host { >>>>>> u32 curr_io_level; >>>>>> wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait; >>>>>> bool pwr_irq_flag; >>>>>> + u32 caps_0; >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>>> static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct >>>>>> sdhci_host >>>>>> *host, >>>>>> @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host >>>>>> *host, u8 val, int reg) >>>>>> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host >>>>>> *msm_host) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc; >>>>>> + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc; >>>>>> + int i, count; >>>>>> + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) { >>>>>> + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply); >>>>>> + if (count < 0) >>>>>> + return count; >>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { >>>>>> + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i); >>>>>> + if (vdd_uV <= 0) >>>>>> + continue; >>>>>> + if (vdd_uV > 2700000) >>>>>> + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT; >>>>>> + if (vdd_uV < 1950000) >>>>>> + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT; >>>>>> + } >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Shouldn't you be using regulator_is_supported_voltage() rather than >>>>> open coding? Also: I've never personally worked on a device where it >>>>> was used, but there is definitely a concept floating about of a >>>>> voltage level of 1.2V. Maybe should copy the ranges from >>>>> mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()? >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> regulator_is_supported_voltage() checks for a range and it also uses >>> regulator_list_voltage() internally. regulator_list_voltage() is also an >>> exported API for use by drivers AFAIK. Please correct if it is not. >> >> Sure, regulator_list_voltage() is valid to call. I'm not saying that >> your code is wrong or violates abstractions, just that it's >> essentially re-implementing regulator_is_supported_voltage() for very >> little gain. Calling regulator_is_supported_voltage() is better >> because: >> >> 1. In theory, it should generate less code. Sure, it might loop twice >> with the current implementation of regulator_is_supported_voltage(), >> but for a non-time-critical section like this smaller code is likely >> better than faster code (decreases kernel size / uses up less cache >> space, etc). >> >> 2. If regulator_is_supported_voltage() is ever improved to be more >> efficient you'll get that improvement automatically. If someone >> happened to source vqmmc from a PWM regulator, for instance, trying to >> enumerate all voltages like this would be a disaster. >> >> 3. Code will be simpler to understand. >> >> You can replace your whole loop with: >> >> if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 1700000, 1950000)) >> caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT >> if (regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 2700000, 3600000)) >> caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT >> >> >>>>> Also: seems like you should have some way to deal with "caps" ending >>>>> up w/ no bits set. IIRC you can have a regulator that can be enabled >>>>> / disabled but doesn't list a voltage, so if someone messed up their >>>>> device tree you could end up in this case. Should you print a >>>>> warning? ...or treat it as if we support "3.0V"? ...or ? I guess it >>>>> depends on how do you want patch #2 to behave in that case. >>>> >>>> >>>> Both, initialize it to sane value and print something. This way at >>>> least you have a good chance of booting and not hard hanging and you >>>> are given a reasonable message indicating what needs to be fixed. >>>> >>>> -jeremy >>>> > > Its good to add a warning, but initializing it to some value might not > be appropriate. It will be better to leave it blank and if caps doesn't > have any of 1.8V/3V, better to not enable IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN. > That makes sense, this way if someone messes up their dts they will at least get a message and we won't set the voltage to something that could potentially destroy / harm the hardware. -jeremy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> + } >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How should things behave if vqmmc is an error? In that case is it >>>>> important to not set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" in patch set #2? >>>>> ...or should you set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH_EN" but then make sure >>>>> you don't set "CORE_IO_PAD_PWR_SWITCH"? >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> Thanks for the suggestion. If the regulators exit and doesn't list the >>> voltages, then I believe initialization itself will not happen. We >>> will not >>> have any available ocr and in sdhci_setup_host it should fail. >>> But these enhancements can be incorporated. Since this patch is already >>> acknowledged, I will incorporate these changes in a subsequent patch. >> >> It's already acknowledged? I saw that your RFC was acknowledged by >> Adrian Hunter but then you didn't include that tag in the posting of >> v2, so I assumed for some reason it no longer applied. If you're >> thinking that Ulf would be the one to apply this patch, he probably >> doesn't know that it's Acked either. >> >> Perhaps Adrian or Ulf can give direction for how they see this patch >> proceeding. >> >> > > Since I put up V2 anyway, I will include your suggestions and put V3. My > mistake, I didn't notice the ACK was for RFC. > >>>>>> + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps; >>>>>> + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", >>>>>> mmc_hostname(mmc), >>>>>> + __func__, caps); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + return 0; >>>>>> +} >>>>>> + >>>>>> + >>>>>> static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = { >>>>>> { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" }, >>>>>> {}, >>>>>> @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct >>>>>> platform_device >>>>>> *pdev) >>>>>> ret = sdhci_add_host(host); >>>>>> if (ret) >>>>>> goto pm_runtime_disable; >>>>>> + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host); >>>>>> + if (ret) >>>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator >>>>>> caps: >>>>>> %d\n", >>>>>> + __func__, ret); >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why do you need __func__ here? You're already using dev_err(), that >>>>> gives an idea of where we are. >>>>> >>> >>> dev_err() doesn't give information of where it is getting called. >> >> It gives you the driver and the error message should be unique to the >> driver and easy to find. Including "__func__ in messages like this is >> discouraged unless you are in a context where you somehow can't get >> access to the device pointer. I suppose ultimately it's up the the >> maintainer for individual cases but overall I've seen this to be a >> consistently applied rule in the kernel. >> >> In any case, why would this particular print be special that it should >> include __func__ but all others (in this file, or in dev_err in >> general) shouldn't? >> >> >>>>>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev); >>>>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev); >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation >>>>>> Center, Inc. >>>>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a >>>>>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >>>>>> linux-mmc" in >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Vijay >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > > Thanks, > Vijay > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c index c283291..5c23e92 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ #include <linux/iopoll.h> #include "sdhci-pltfm.h" +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> #define CORE_MCI_VERSION 0x50 #define CORE_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 28 @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@ #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_HS400 (6 << 19) #define CORE_HC_SELECT_IN_MASK (7 << 19) +#define CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT (1 << 25) +#define CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT (1 << 26) + #define CORE_CSR_CDC_CTLR_CFG0 0x130 #define CORE_SW_TRIG_FULL_CALIB BIT(16) #define CORE_HW_AUTOCAL_ENA BIT(17) @@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host { u32 curr_io_level; wait_queue_head_t pwr_irq_wait; bool pwr_irq_flag; + u32 caps_0; }; static unsigned int msm_get_clock_rate_for_bus_mode(struct sdhci_host *host, @@ -1313,6 +1318,35 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 val, int reg) sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type); } +static int sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host) +{ + struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc; + struct regulator *supply = mmc->supply.vqmmc; + int i, count; + u32 caps = 0, vdd_uV; + + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) { + count = regulator_count_voltages(supply); + if (count < 0) + return count; + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { + vdd_uV = regulator_list_voltage(supply, i); + if (vdd_uV <= 0) + continue; + if (vdd_uV > 2700000) + caps |= CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT; + if (vdd_uV < 1950000) + caps |= CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT; + } + } + msm_host->caps_0 |= caps; + pr_debug("%s: %s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc), + __func__, caps); + + return 0; +} + + static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = { { .compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4" }, {}, @@ -1530,6 +1564,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) ret = sdhci_add_host(host); if (ret) goto pm_runtime_disable; + ret = sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host); + if (ret) + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: Failed to set regulator caps: %d\n", + __func__, ret); pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev); pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
During probe check whether the vdd-io regulator of sdhc platform device can support 1.8V and 3V and store this information as a capability of platform device. Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@codeaurora.org> --- drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)