| Message ID | 20240131215044.3163469-3-jm@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add tuning algorithm for delay chain | expand |
On 1/31/24 3:50 PM, Judith Mendez wrote: > For DDR52 timing, DLL is enabled but tuning is not carried > out, therefore the ITAPDLY value in PHY CTRL 4 register is > not correct. Fix this by writing ITAPDLY after enabling DLL. > > Fixes: a161c45f2979 ("mmc: sdhci_am654: Enable DLL only for some speed modes") > Signed-off-by: Judith Mendez <jm@ti.com> > --- > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c > index a3798c9912f6..ff18a274b6f2 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c > @@ -170,7 +170,19 @@ struct sdhci_am654_driver_data { > #define DLL_CALIB (1 << 4) > }; > > -static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock) > +static void sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(struct sdhci_am654_data *sdhci_am654, > + u32 itapdly) This patch is confusing, looks like you switched the place of these two functions, but diff is not really liking that. You can mess with --diff-algorithm and the like to get a more readable patch. But in this case why switch their spots at all? Seems to be so you can call sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() from sdhci_am654_setup_dll() without a forward declaration, instead why not just call sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() after calling sdhci_am654_setup_dll() below. That also saves to from having to pass in `timing` to sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() just to have it pass it right through to sdhci_am654_setup_dll(). Andrew > +{ > + /* Set ITAPCHGWIN before writing to ITAPDLY */ > + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, > + 0x1 << ITAPCHGWIN_SHIFT); > + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPDLYSEL_MASK, > + itapdly << ITAPDLYSEL_SHIFT); > + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, 0); > +} > + > +static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock, > + unsigned char timing) > { > struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host); > struct sdhci_am654_data *sdhci_am654 = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host); > @@ -236,17 +248,8 @@ static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock) > dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "DLL failed to relock\n"); > return; > } > -} > > -static void sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(struct sdhci_am654_data *sdhci_am654, > - u32 itapdly) > -{ > - /* Set ITAPCHGWIN before writing to ITAPDLY */ > - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, > - 1 << ITAPCHGWIN_SHIFT); > - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPDLYSEL_MASK, > - itapdly << ITAPDLYSEL_SHIFT); > - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, 0); > + sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(sdhci_am654, sdhci_am654->itap_del_sel[timing]); > } > > static void sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain(struct sdhci_am654_data *sdhci_am654, > @@ -298,7 +301,7 @@ static void sdhci_am654_set_clock(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock) > regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, mask, val); > > if (timing > MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR25 && clock >= CLOCK_TOO_SLOW_HZ) { > - sdhci_am654_setup_dll(host, clock); > + sdhci_am654_setup_dll(host, clock, timing); > sdhci_am654->dll_enable = true; > } else { > sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain(sdhci_am654, timing);
Hi Andrew, On 2/1/24 1:36 PM, Andrew Davis wrote: > On 1/31/24 3:50 PM, Judith Mendez wrote: >> For DDR52 timing, DLL is enabled but tuning is not carried >> out, therefore the ITAPDLY value in PHY CTRL 4 register is >> not correct. Fix this by writing ITAPDLY after enabling DLL. >> >> Fixes: a161c45f2979 ("mmc: sdhci_am654: Enable DLL only for some speed >> modes") >> Signed-off-by: Judith Mendez <jm@ti.com> >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c >> b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c >> index a3798c9912f6..ff18a274b6f2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c >> @@ -170,7 +170,19 @@ struct sdhci_am654_driver_data { >> #define DLL_CALIB (1 << 4) >> }; >> -static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned >> int clock) >> +static void sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(struct sdhci_am654_data >> *sdhci_am654, >> + u32 itapdly) > > This patch is confusing, looks like you switched the place of these two > functions, but diff is not really liking that. You can mess with > --diff-algorithm and the like to get a more readable patch. But in > this case why switch their spots at all? > > Seems to be so you can call sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() from > sdhci_am654_setup_dll() without a forward declaration, instead > why not just call sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() after calling > sdhci_am654_setup_dll() below. That also saves to from having > to pass in `timing` to sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() just to > have it pass it right through to sdhci_am654_setup_dll(). Really the only reason I did this is because we call sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() in sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain and I wanted to keep the flow for setting up DLL the same. I agree the patch looks confusing, so I will fix this for v2. ~ Judith > Andrew > >> +{ >> + /* Set ITAPCHGWIN before writing to ITAPDLY */ >> + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, >> + 0x1 << ITAPCHGWIN_SHIFT); >> + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPDLYSEL_MASK, >> + itapdly << ITAPDLYSEL_SHIFT); >> + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, >> 0); >> +} >> + >> +static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned >> int clock, >> + unsigned char timing) >> { >> struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host); >> struct sdhci_am654_data *sdhci_am654 = >> sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host); >> @@ -236,17 +248,8 @@ static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct >> sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock) >> dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "DLL failed to relock\n"); >> return; >> } >> -} >> -static void sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(struct sdhci_am654_data >> *sdhci_am654, >> - u32 itapdly) >> -{ >> - /* Set ITAPCHGWIN before writing to ITAPDLY */ >> - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, >> - 1 << ITAPCHGWIN_SHIFT); >> - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPDLYSEL_MASK, >> - itapdly << ITAPDLYSEL_SHIFT); >> - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, >> 0); >> + sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(sdhci_am654, >> sdhci_am654->itap_del_sel[timing]); >> } >> static void sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain(struct sdhci_am654_data >> *sdhci_am654, >> @@ -298,7 +301,7 @@ static void sdhci_am654_set_clock(struct >> sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock) >> regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, mask, val); >> if (timing > MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR25 && clock >= CLOCK_TOO_SLOW_HZ) { >> - sdhci_am654_setup_dll(host, clock); >> + sdhci_am654_setup_dll(host, clock, timing); >> sdhci_am654->dll_enable = true; >> } else { >> sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain(sdhci_am654, timing);
On 2/6/24 3:58 PM, Judith Mendez wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On 2/1/24 1:36 PM, Andrew Davis wrote: >> On 1/31/24 3:50 PM, Judith Mendez wrote: >>> For DDR52 timing, DLL is enabled but tuning is not carried >>> out, therefore the ITAPDLY value in PHY CTRL 4 register is >>> not correct. Fix this by writing ITAPDLY after enabling DLL. >>> >>> Fixes: a161c45f2979 ("mmc: sdhci_am654: Enable DLL only for some >>> speed modes") >>> Signed-off-by: Judith Mendez <jm@ti.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ >>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c >>> b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c >>> index a3798c9912f6..ff18a274b6f2 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c >>> @@ -170,7 +170,19 @@ struct sdhci_am654_driver_data { >>> #define DLL_CALIB (1 << 4) >>> }; >>> -static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned >>> int clock) >>> +static void sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(struct sdhci_am654_data >>> *sdhci_am654, >>> + u32 itapdly) >> >> This patch is confusing, looks like you switched the place of these two >> functions, but diff is not really liking that. You can mess with >> --diff-algorithm and the like to get a more readable patch. But in >> this case why switch their spots at all? >> >> Seems to be so you can call sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() from >> sdhci_am654_setup_dll() without a forward declaration, instead >> why not just call sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() after calling >> sdhci_am654_setup_dll() below. That also saves to from having >> to pass in `timing` to sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() just to >> have it pass it right through to sdhci_am654_setup_dll(). > > Really the only reason I did this is because we call > sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() in sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain and > I wanted to keep the flow for setting up DLL the same. > I agree the patch looks confusing, so I will fix this for v2. TBH I think it is a good idea to keep the flow the same as it is for sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain(). Unless you know of a strong enough reason to change, I am leaning towards leaving the patch as is. > > ~ Judith > >> Andrew >> >>> +{ >>> + /* Set ITAPCHGWIN before writing to ITAPDLY */ >>> + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, >>> + 0x1 << ITAPCHGWIN_SHIFT); >>> + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPDLYSEL_MASK, >>> + itapdly << ITAPDLYSEL_SHIFT); >>> + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, >>> ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, 0); >>> +} >>> + >>> +static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned >>> int clock, >>> + unsigned char timing) >>> { >>> struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host); >>> struct sdhci_am654_data *sdhci_am654 = >>> sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host); >>> @@ -236,17 +248,8 @@ static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct >>> sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock) >>> dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "DLL failed to relock\n"); >>> return; >>> } >>> -} >>> -static void sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(struct sdhci_am654_data >>> *sdhci_am654, >>> - u32 itapdly) >>> -{ >>> - /* Set ITAPCHGWIN before writing to ITAPDLY */ >>> - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, >>> - 1 << ITAPCHGWIN_SHIFT); >>> - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPDLYSEL_MASK, >>> - itapdly << ITAPDLYSEL_SHIFT); >>> - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, >>> ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, 0); >>> + sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(sdhci_am654, >>> sdhci_am654->itap_del_sel[timing]); >>> } >>> static void sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain(struct sdhci_am654_data >>> *sdhci_am654, >>> @@ -298,7 +301,7 @@ static void sdhci_am654_set_clock(struct >>> sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock) >>> regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, mask, val); >>> if (timing > MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR25 && clock >= CLOCK_TOO_SLOW_HZ) { >>> - sdhci_am654_setup_dll(host, clock); >>> + sdhci_am654_setup_dll(host, clock, timing); >>> sdhci_am654->dll_enable = true; >>> } else { >>> sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain(sdhci_am654, timing); > >
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c index a3798c9912f6..ff18a274b6f2 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c @@ -170,7 +170,19 @@ struct sdhci_am654_driver_data { #define DLL_CALIB (1 << 4) }; -static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock) +static void sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(struct sdhci_am654_data *sdhci_am654, + u32 itapdly) +{ + /* Set ITAPCHGWIN before writing to ITAPDLY */ + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, + 0x1 << ITAPCHGWIN_SHIFT); + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPDLYSEL_MASK, + itapdly << ITAPDLYSEL_SHIFT); + regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, 0); +} + +static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock, + unsigned char timing) { struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host); struct sdhci_am654_data *sdhci_am654 = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host); @@ -236,17 +248,8 @@ static void sdhci_am654_setup_dll(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock) dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "DLL failed to relock\n"); return; } -} -static void sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(struct sdhci_am654_data *sdhci_am654, - u32 itapdly) -{ - /* Set ITAPCHGWIN before writing to ITAPDLY */ - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, - 1 << ITAPCHGWIN_SHIFT); - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPDLYSEL_MASK, - itapdly << ITAPDLYSEL_SHIFT); - regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, ITAPCHGWIN_MASK, 0); + sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(sdhci_am654, sdhci_am654->itap_del_sel[timing]); } static void sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain(struct sdhci_am654_data *sdhci_am654, @@ -298,7 +301,7 @@ static void sdhci_am654_set_clock(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock) regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, mask, val); if (timing > MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR25 && clock >= CLOCK_TOO_SLOW_HZ) { - sdhci_am654_setup_dll(host, clock); + sdhci_am654_setup_dll(host, clock, timing); sdhci_am654->dll_enable = true; } else { sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain(sdhci_am654, timing);
For DDR52 timing, DLL is enabled but tuning is not carried out, therefore the ITAPDLY value in PHY CTRL 4 register is not correct. Fix this by writing ITAPDLY after enabling DLL. Fixes: a161c45f2979 ("mmc: sdhci_am654: Enable DLL only for some speed modes") Signed-off-by: Judith Mendez <jm@ti.com> --- drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)