[PATCH 04/23] mmc: sdhci: re-factor sdhci_start_signal_voltage()
Jaehoon Chung
jh80.chung at samsung.com
Thu Apr 28 01:30:11 PDT 2016
On 04/28/2016 04:44 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 28/04/16 10:15, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> On 04/28/2016 03:39 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 28/04/16 06:09, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:26:52PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>>> On 24/04/2016 12:14 p.m., Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Adrian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the review first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter at intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15/04/16 20:29, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>>>>>>> Handle host and regulator signal voltage switch separately.
>>>>>>>> Move host signal voltage switch code into a separated function
>>>>>>>> sdhci_do_signal_voltage_switch() first, the following patches will
>>>>>>>> remove the regulator voltage switch code and use the common
>>>>>>>> mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc() instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have changed the order that things are done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the oder changes a bit that we always do controller voltage switch first.
>>>>>> I suppose the order is irrelevant here since i don't recall any
>>>>>> requirement from card.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually the original order is also a bit mass.
>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>> For MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_330, switch controller first, then vqmmc.
>>>>>> But for MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_180, switch vqmmc first, then controller.
>>>>>> It looks to us the original one also order irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no way to know
>>>>>>> what that will break, so let's not do that. What about just changing
>>>>>>> regulator_set_voltage() to mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently what i can think out VIO switch using are three cases: (Pls
>>>>>> help add if any)
>>>>>> 1) Both host IO and card IO use external vqmmc to do switch
>>>>>> (e.g eMMC 1.8V DDR/HS200/HS400 mode)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eMMC has no IO voltage switch protocol and requirement, so usually
>>>>>> board designed
>>>>>> using fixed 1.8V for eMMC and host IO.
>>>>>> Event it's switchable, it should be done in the first mmc_power_up().
>>>>>> Dynamical switch later may cause eMMC unable to work properly.
>>>>>> (We have been confirmed about this issue by many eMMC vendors
>>>>>> like Micron and Sandisk. I'm not sure if any exceptions in the community
>>>>>> still doing VIO dynamical switch for eMMC, if yes, please help share
>>>>>> the experience!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Event some people still do dynamical IO switch for eMMC, since eMMC
>>>>>> spec has no requirement, so the order should also not care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Host using controller IO switch while card using standard CMD (SD/SDIO3.0)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SD/SDIO 3.0 spec defines the standard IO switch process and using it's internal
>>>>>> regulator to do card IO voltage switch. It does not use external vqmmc
>>>>>> regulator.
>>>>>> So order irrelevant too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Host using controller IO switch while card using external vqmmc
>>>>>> (special SDIO3.0 or eMMC)
>>>>>> I have met some special SDIO3.0 card like Broadcom WiFi which does not follow
>>>>>> the spec and using external regulator for card IO voltage.
>>>>>> Usually it's required to fix to 1.8v and also not order irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For eMMC, refer to case 1), it should be fixed to 1.8v at power up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it looks all cases seems are not order required.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't agree that there is any way to know that other host controllers
>>>>> are not affected. I don't want a repeat of sdhci_set_power().
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you share some more info about sdhci_set_power() issue?
>>>> I'd like to see if we are same the issue.
>>>
>>> Not the same issue, but the same concept. People changing the code under
>>> the impression that their way was correct, and then breaking other people's
>>> drivers. Check the git history and mailing list.
>>>
>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mmc&m=145880454106474&w=2
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, IMHO i don't think we should stop keep moving only afraid of potential
>>>> break if it's correct way. Because .start_signal_voltage_switch() interface
>>>> seems shouldn't be order dependant.
>>>> If it is, then it should be fixed and handled in high layer like MMC core
>>>> rather than in host driver. Right?
>>>
>>> The SDHCI spec. does not define how to use external regulators, so there is
>>> no "correct way".
>>>
>>> We have to move forward *and* avoid potential breakage.
>>>
>>> In this case it seems me that the risk of breakage outweighs the value of
>>> prettier code.
>>>
>>> By the way, there are ways to get rid of the ugliness - such as pushing it down
>>> into individual drivers.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Please instead send a patch for just using mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()
>>>>> in place of regulator_set_voltage().
>>>>
>>>> Just using mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc() also changes the order which
>>>> is the same situation.
>>>
>>> How so? It looks like a drop-in replacement to me:
>>
>> maybe.. this question should not be related with this discussion..
>> But i have one question..sdhci_do_start_signal_voltage_switch() returned 0 or EAGAIN, when IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc) is ture.
>> It there any problem?
>
> Not that I am aware of.
>
>>
>> I'm also checking on core side. but just wondering this.
>> (Because i'm fixing dwmmc controller for this.)
>
> What is the problem?
It should be difference with dwmmc controller.
if mmc->supply.vqmmc is not assigned, it didn't change the voltage..
(I'm not sure that HOST_CONTROL2 register can internally change the voltage..because i didn't have SDHC 3.0 spec.)
__mmc_set_signal_voltage()
-> host->ops->start_signal_voltage_switch()
-> host controller just set the bits for v1.8 or v3.3..(if vqmmc didn't use.)
if return -EAGAIN or 0 , the bits that was set for v1.8 or v3.3 should be maintained.
And do mmc_power_cycle() -> mmc_power_off and mmc_set_initial_state()
But host controller didn't initialize.
That is dwmmc controller's side..
As my understanding, if voltage switch(UHS-I mode) is failed, it should be set to HS mode.
but dwmmc controller didn't work this case..so i will fix.
(Some parts are code bugs in dwmmc controller.)
I don't know sdhci is working fine or not..just wondering. :)
I'm going to analyze the sequence and other thing..so i may miss something.
Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Jaehoon Chung
>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> index 94cffa77490a..69b4d48aff87 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> @@ -1757,8 +1757,7 @@ static int sdhci_do_start_signal_voltage_switch(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>> sdhci_writew(host, ctrl, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2);
>>>
>>> if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>>> - ret = regulator_set_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 2700000,
>>> - 3600000);
>>> + ret = mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc(mmc, ios);
>>> if (ret) {
>>> pr_warn("%s: Switching to 3.3V signalling voltage failed\n",
>>> mmc_hostname(mmc));
>>> @@ -1779,8 +1778,7 @@ static int sdhci_do_start_signal_voltage_switch(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>> return -EAGAIN;
>>> case MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_180:
>>> if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>>> - ret = regulator_set_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc,
>>> - 1700000, 1950000);
>>> + ret = mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc(mmc, ios);
>>> if (ret) {
>>> pr_warn("%s: Switching to 1.8V signalling voltage failed\n",
>>> mmc_hostname(mmc));
>>> @@ -1810,8 +1808,7 @@ static int sdhci_do_start_signal_voltage_switch(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>> return -EAGAIN;
>>> case MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_120:
>>> if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>>> - ret = regulator_set_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 1100000,
>>> - 1300000);
>>> + ret = mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc(mmc, ios);
>>> if (ret) {
>>> pr_warn("%s: Switching to 1.2V signalling voltage failed\n",
>>> mmc_hostname(mmc));
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo at 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 at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list