| Message ID | CAMuHMdXuy2TxACTcsgOpZvrJEeTSQbCgCUmS9PXfBhhZfgbBBA@mail.gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Geert Uytterhoeven |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 02:00:52PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > The existing check in the patch should be an || not an ==, or possibly > > we should just not bother looking for min_uV at all. I just pushed out > > a version of that, let's see how that goes. > Has the fix really been pushed out? Yes. > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 31 at drivers/regulator/core.c:2223 > _regulator_disable+0x2c/0x128 > unbalanced disables for SDHI0 VccQ > when booting on r8a7791/koelsch. This seems like a bug somewhere else in your code, we're looking at changes in the voltage setting code but this is an unbalanced disable. > I'm a bit confused by the discussion of "&&" vs. "||" vs. "==", but the > warnings do go away when using "!=", cfr. the whitespace-damaged patch below. > /* Voltage change possible? */ > - if (constraints->min_uV && constraints->max_uV) { > + if (constraints->min_uV != constraints->max_uV) { Do you have constraints that specify a maximum voltage but no minimum (which I'd say are broken), or constraints that are just plain wrong but are now being applied like specifying the entire range of the regulator? The above might be some follow on error handling from something that happened the change in handling of the constraints. You need to look at what the relevant regulator constraints are... Previously both voltages needed to be non-zero and equal for anything to happen, now they only need to both be non-zero.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 02:00:52PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > The existing check in the patch should be an || not an ==, or possibly >> > we should just not bother looking for min_uV at all. I just pushed out >> > a version of that, let's see how that goes. > >> Has the fix really been pushed out? > > Yes. > >> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 31 at drivers/regulator/core.c:2223 >> _regulator_disable+0x2c/0x128 >> unbalanced disables for SDHI0 VccQ > >> when booting on r8a7791/koelsch. > > This seems like a bug somewhere else in your code, we're looking at > changes in the voltage setting code but this is an unbalanced disable. > >> I'm a bit confused by the discussion of "&&" vs. "||" vs. "==", but the >> warnings do go away when using "!=", cfr. the whitespace-damaged patch below. > >> /* Voltage change possible? */ >> - if (constraints->min_uV && constraints->max_uV) { >> + if (constraints->min_uV != constraints->max_uV) { > > Do you have constraints that specify a maximum voltage but no minimum > (which I'd say are broken), or constraints that are just plain wrong but > are now being applied like specifying the entire range of the regulator? > The above might be some follow on error handling from something that > happened the change in handling of the constraints. You need to look at > what the relevant regulator constraints are... > > Previously both voltages needed to be non-zero and equal for anything to > happen, now they only need to both be non-zero. There are 3 regulators with equal constraints: /regulator@0: constraints->min_uV = 3300000, constraints->max_uV = 3300000 /regulator@2: constraints->min_uV = 3300000, constraints->max_uV = 3300000 /regulator@4: constraints->min_uV = 3300000, constraints->max_uV = 3300000 and 3 with different constraints: /regulator@1: constraints->min_uV = 1800000, constraints->max_uV = 3300000 /regulator@3: constraints->min_uV = 1800000, constraints->max_uV = 3300000 /regulator@5: constraints->min_uV = 1800000, constraints->max_uV = 3300000 For the first SDHI channel, these come from: vcc_sdhi0: regulator@0 { compatible = "regulator-fixed"; regulator-name = "SDHI0 Vcc"; regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; gpio = <&gpio7 17 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; enable-active-high; }; vccq_sdhi0: regulator@1 { compatible = "regulator-gpio"; regulator-name = "SDHI0 VccQ"; regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; gpios = <&gpio2 12 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; gpios-states = <1>; states = <3300000 1 1800000 0>; }; &sdhi0 { pinctrl-0 = <&sdhi0_pins>; pinctrl-names = "default"; vmmc-supply = <&vcc_sdhi0>; vqmmc-supply = <&vccq_sdhi0>; cd-gpios = <&gpio6 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; wp-gpios = <&gpio6 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; status = "okay"; }; giving: sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: GPIO lookup for consumer cd sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: using device tree for GPIO lookup of_get_named_gpiod_flags: parsed 'cd-gpios' property of node '/sd@ee100000[0]' - status (0) sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: Got CD GPIO sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: GPIO lookup for consumer wp sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: using device tree for GPIO lookup of_get_named_gpiod_flags: parsed 'wp-gpios' property of node '/sd@ee100000[0]' - status (0) sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: Got WP GPIO ======> sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: could not set regulator OCR (-22) gpio_rcar e6055400.gpio: sense irq = 6, type = 3 sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: mmc0 base at 0xee100000 clock rate 97 MHz The line marked with the arrow is introduced by the changed check, and looks to be the origin of the failure. Later, the "unbalanced disables for SDHI0 VccQ" warning is triggered. Probably the error path always disables the second regulator, even if it was never enabled due an the earlier failure. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:05:34PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: Got WP GPIO > ======> sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: could not set regulator OCR (-22) > gpio_rcar e6055400.gpio: sense irq = 6, type = 3 > sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: mmc0 base at 0xee100000 clock rate 97 MHz > The line marked with the arrow is introduced by the changed check, and looks > to be the origin of the failure. This isn't making any sense. Why would a change in how we apply voltage constraints on initial probe of the regulator have an impact here? The changed code shouldn't even be executing at the point where the SDHCI driver is trying to use the regulator. There's something else going on here.
Hi Brown,
I also meet the similar issue on i.MX6 platforms.
With your patch ---> regulator: core: Ensure we are at least in bounds for our constraints
When I insert an SD3.0 card, shows the following log:
root@imx6qdlsolo:~# [ 59.733941] sdhci-esdhc-imx 2190000.usdhc: could not set regulator OCR (-22)
[ 60.829911] sdhci-esdhc-imx 2190000.usdhc: could not set regulator OCR (-22)
[ 61.917951] sdhci-esdhc-imx 2190000.usdhc: could not set regulator OCR (-22)
[ 63.009498] sdhci-esdhc-imx 2190000.usdhc: could not set regulator OCR (-22)
I did a quick debug, and find when I change the operator && to != , this issue gone.
- if (constraints->min_uV != constraints->max_uV) {
+ if (constraints->min_uV && constraints->max_uV) {
In our sdhci.c, we call the function
regulator_set_voltage ---> regulator_set_voltage_unlocked(struct regulator *regulator, int min_uV, int max_uV)
here, the parameter min_uV is 3300000, and the max_uV is 3400000
currently with your patch (the upper operator is &&), when insert a SD3.0 card,
it will do the sanity check, and return -EINVAL
but when I change the upper operator from && to !=,
before the sanity check, it will first get the current_uV, and then go to out.
I'm not familiar with regulator common code. Hope the upper describe can help you debug this issue.
The following attach our dts piece code.
126 &usdhc1 {
127 pinctrl-names = "default", "state_100mhz", "state_200mhz";
128 pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_usdhc1>;
129 pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_usdhc1_100mhz>;
130 pinctrl-2 = <&pinctrl_usdhc1_200mhz>;
131 cd-gpios = <&gpio1 19 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
132 keep-power-in-suspend;
133 wakeup-source;
134 vmmc-supply = <®_sd1_vmmc>;
135 status = "okay";
136 };
regulators {
26 compatible = "simple-bus";
27 #address-cells = <1>;
28 #size-cells = <0>;
29
30 reg_sd1_vmmc: sd1_regulator {
31 compatible = "regulator-fixed";
32 regulator-name = "VSD_3V3";
33 regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
34 regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
35 gpio = <&gpio1 9 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
36 enable-active-high;
37 };
38 };
Best Regards
Haibo Chen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-mmc-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Brown
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:27 AM
> To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@kryo.se>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>; Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com>;
> Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Ulf
> Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>; linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>;
> linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>; Javier Martinez
> Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>; Marek Szyprowski
> <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>; linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: core: Ensure we are at least in bounds for
> our constraints
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:05:34PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> > sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: Got WP GPIO ======> sh_mobile_sdhi
> > ee100000.sd: could not set regulator OCR (-22)
> > gpio_rcar e6055400.gpio: sense irq = 6, type = 3
> > sh_mobile_sdhi ee100000.sd: mmc0 base at 0xee100000 clock rate
> > 97 MHz
>
> > The line marked with the arrow is introduced by the changed check, and
> > looks to be the origin of the failure.
>
> This isn't making any sense. Why would a change in how we apply voltage
> constraints on initial probe of the regulator have an impact here? The changed
> code shouldn't even be executing at the point where the SDHCI driver is trying
> to use the regulator. There's something else going on here.
--- a/drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static void of_get_regulation_constraints(struct device_node * constraints->max_uV = pval; /* Voltage change possible? */ - if (constraints->min_uV && constraints->max_uV) { + if (constraints->min_uV != constraints->max_uV) { constraints->valid_ops_mask |= REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE; constraints->apply_uV = true; }