Message ID | 20241102134522.333047-1-wahrenst@gmx.net (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [RFC] mmc: pwrseq_simple: Handle !RESET_CONTROLLER properly | expand |
Hi Stefan, On 24-11-02, Stefan Wahren wrote: > The recent introduction of reset control in pwrseq_simple introduced > a regression for platforms without RESET_CONTROLLER support, because This is what I was afraid of :/ > devm_reset_control_get_optional_shared() would return NULL and make all > resets no-ops. Instead of enforcing this dependency rely on this behavior > to determine reset support. As a benefit we can get the rid of the > use_reset flag. > > Fixes: 73bf4b7381f7 ("mmc: pwrseq_simple: add support for one reset control") > Signed-off-by: Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@gmx.net> > --- > drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c | 16 +++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > Hi, > will trying to reproduce the Rpi 4 regression from here [1], I found > the issue above. I'm pretty sure the Rpi 4 regression is caused by the same > commit. Unfortunately I wasn't able to reproduce it. > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/6724d7d5.170a0220.1281e9.910a@mx.google.com/T/#u > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c > index 24e4e63a5dc8..b8782727750e 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c > @@ -32,7 +32,6 @@ struct mmc_pwrseq_simple { > struct clk *ext_clk; > struct gpio_descs *reset_gpios; > struct reset_control *reset_ctrl; > - bool use_reset; > }; > > #define to_pwrseq_simple(p) container_of(p, struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq) > @@ -71,7 +70,7 @@ static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(struct mmc_host *host) > pwrseq->clk_enabled = true; > } > > - if (pwrseq->use_reset) { > + if (pwrseq->reset_ctrl) { > reset_control_deassert(pwrseq->reset_ctrl); > reset_control_assert(pwrseq->reset_ctrl); > } else > @@ -82,7 +81,7 @@ static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on(struct mmc_host *host) > { > struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = to_pwrseq_simple(host->pwrseq); > > - if (pwrseq->use_reset) > + if (pwrseq->reset_ctrl) > reset_control_deassert(pwrseq->reset_ctrl); > else > mmc_pwrseq_simple_set_gpios_value(pwrseq, 0); > @@ -95,7 +94,7 @@ static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_off(struct mmc_host *host) > { > struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = to_pwrseq_simple(host->pwrseq); > > - if (pwrseq->use_reset) > + if (pwrseq->reset_ctrl) > reset_control_assert(pwrseq->reset_ctrl); > else > mmc_pwrseq_simple_set_gpios_value(pwrseq, 1); > @@ -137,15 +136,14 @@ static int mmc_pwrseq_simple_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pwrseq->ext_clk), "external clock not ready\n"); > > ngpio = of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "reset-gpios", "#gpio-cells"); > - if (ngpio == 1) > - pwrseq->use_reset = true; > - > - if (pwrseq->use_reset) { > + if (ngpio == 1) { > pwrseq->reset_ctrl = devm_reset_control_get_optional_shared(dev, NULL); > if (IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_ctrl)) > return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_ctrl), > "reset control not ready\n"); > - } else { > + } > + Can we add a comment like: /* * Fallback to gpio based reset control in case of multiple reset lines * are specified or the platform doesn't have support for RESET at all. */ Regards, Marco > + if (!pwrseq->reset_ctrl) { > pwrseq->reset_gpios = devm_gpiod_get_array(dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH); > if (IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpios) && > PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpios) != -ENOENT && > -- > 2.34.1 > >
Hi Mark, Am 04.11.24 um 10:39 schrieb Marco Felsch: > Hi Stefan, > > On 24-11-02, Stefan Wahren wrote: >> The recent introduction of reset control in pwrseq_simple introduced >> a regression for platforms without RESET_CONTROLLER support, because > This is what I was afraid of :/ > >> devm_reset_control_get_optional_shared() would return NULL and make all >> resets no-ops. Instead of enforcing this dependency rely on this behavior >> to determine reset support. As a benefit we can get the rid of the >> use_reset flag. >> >> Fixes: 73bf4b7381f7 ("mmc: pwrseq_simple: add support for one reset control") >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@gmx.net> >> --- >> drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c | 16 +++++++--------- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> Hi, >> will trying to reproduce the Rpi 4 regression from here [1], I found >> the issue above. I'm pretty sure the Rpi 4 regression is caused by the same >> commit. Unfortunately I wasn't able to reproduce it. >> >> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/6724d7d5.170a0220.1281e9.910a@mx.google.com/T/#u I think i've a better unterstanding of the regression in your case. I noticed on my Raspberry Pi 3 B+ that this change in combination with arm64/defconfig causes a huge delay until wifi is probed (~ 32 seconds). Maybe this is caused by the fact that RESET_GPIO is build as a module, while PWRSEQ_SIMPLE is builtin. But this doesn't explain why the driver seem to never probe in your case. Regards
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c index 24e4e63a5dc8..b8782727750e 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c @@ -32,7 +32,6 @@ struct mmc_pwrseq_simple { struct clk *ext_clk; struct gpio_descs *reset_gpios; struct reset_control *reset_ctrl; - bool use_reset; }; #define to_pwrseq_simple(p) container_of(p, struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq) @@ -71,7 +70,7 @@ static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(struct mmc_host *host) pwrseq->clk_enabled = true; } - if (pwrseq->use_reset) { + if (pwrseq->reset_ctrl) { reset_control_deassert(pwrseq->reset_ctrl); reset_control_assert(pwrseq->reset_ctrl); } else @@ -82,7 +81,7 @@ static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on(struct mmc_host *host) { struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = to_pwrseq_simple(host->pwrseq); - if (pwrseq->use_reset) + if (pwrseq->reset_ctrl) reset_control_deassert(pwrseq->reset_ctrl); else mmc_pwrseq_simple_set_gpios_value(pwrseq, 0); @@ -95,7 +94,7 @@ static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_off(struct mmc_host *host) { struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = to_pwrseq_simple(host->pwrseq); - if (pwrseq->use_reset) + if (pwrseq->reset_ctrl) reset_control_assert(pwrseq->reset_ctrl); else mmc_pwrseq_simple_set_gpios_value(pwrseq, 1); @@ -137,15 +136,14 @@ static int mmc_pwrseq_simple_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pwrseq->ext_clk), "external clock not ready\n"); ngpio = of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "reset-gpios", "#gpio-cells"); - if (ngpio == 1) - pwrseq->use_reset = true; - - if (pwrseq->use_reset) { + if (ngpio == 1) { pwrseq->reset_ctrl = devm_reset_control_get_optional_shared(dev, NULL); if (IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_ctrl)) return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_ctrl), "reset control not ready\n"); - } else { + } + + if (!pwrseq->reset_ctrl) { pwrseq->reset_gpios = devm_gpiod_get_array(dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH); if (IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpios) && PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpios) != -ENOENT &&
The recent introduction of reset control in pwrseq_simple introduced a regression for platforms without RESET_CONTROLLER support, because devm_reset_control_get_optional_shared() would return NULL and make all resets no-ops. Instead of enforcing this dependency rely on this behavior to determine reset support. As a benefit we can get the rid of the use_reset flag. Fixes: 73bf4b7381f7 ("mmc: pwrseq_simple: add support for one reset control") Signed-off-by: Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@gmx.net> --- drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c | 16 +++++++--------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) Hi, will trying to reproduce the Rpi 4 regression from here [1], I found the issue above. I'm pretty sure the Rpi 4 regression is caused by the same commit. Unfortunately I wasn't able to reproduce it. [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/6724d7d5.170a0220.1281e9.910a@mx.google.com/T/#u -- 2.34.1