Hi Dough, Jeremy,

On 3/3/2018 4:38 AM, Jeremy McNicoll wrote:
On 2018-03-02 10:23 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Vijay Viswanath
<vvisw...@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 <vvisw...@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

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.


+       }

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.

  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 majord...@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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Reply via email to