[PATCH v5 00/18] power: sequencing: implement the subsystem and add first users

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:21 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 at 19:18, <neil.armstrong at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 19/02/2024 13:33, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 at 14:23, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl at bgdev.pl> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:26 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> > >> <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> [snip]
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> For WCN7850 we hide the existence of the PMU as modeling it is simply not
> > >>>>>>>> necessary. The BT and WLAN devices on the device-tree are represented as
> > >>>>>>>> consuming the inputs (relevant to the functionality of each) of the PMU
> > >>>>>>>> directly.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> We are describing the hardware. From the hardware point of view, there
> > >>>>>>> is a PMU. I think at some point we would really like to describe all
> > >>>>>>> Qualcomm/Atheros WiFI+BT units using this PMU approach, including the
> > >>>>>>> older ath10k units present on RB3 (WCN3990) and db820c (QCA6174).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> While I agree with older WiFi+BT units, I don't think it's needed for
> > >>>>>> WCN7850 since BT+WiFi are now designed to be fully independent and PMU is
> > >>>>>> transparent.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I don't see any significant difference between WCN6750/WCN6855 and
> > >>>>> WCN7850 from the PMU / power up point of view. Could you please point
> > >>>>> me to the difference?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The WCN7850 datasheet clearly states there's not contraint on the WLAN_EN
> > >>>> and BT_EN ordering and the only requirement is to have all input regulators
> > >>>> up before pulling up WLAN_EN and/or BT_EN.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This makes the PMU transparent and BT and WLAN can be described as independent.
> > >>>
> > >>>  From the hardware perspective, there is a PMU. It has several LDOs. So
> > >>> the device tree should have the same style as the previous
> > >>> generations.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> My thinking was this: yes, there is a PMU but describing it has no
> > >> benefit (unlike QCA6x90). If we do describe, then we'll end up having
> > >> to use pwrseq here despite it not being needed because now we won't be
> > >> able to just get regulators from WLAN/BT drivers directly.
> > >>
> > >> So I also vote for keeping it this way. Let's go into the package
> > >> detail only if it's required.
> > >
> > > The WiFi / BT parts are not powered up by the board regulators. They
> > > are powered up by the PSU. So we are not describing it in the accurate
> > > way.
> >
> > I disagree, the WCN7850 can also be used as a discrete PCIe M.2 card, and in
> > this situation the PCIe part is powered with the M.2 slot and the BT side
> > is powered separately as we currently do it now.
>
> QCA6390 can also be used as a discrete M.2 card.
>
> > So yes there's a PMU, but it's not an always visible hardware part, from the
> > SoC PoV, only the separate PCIe and BT subsystems are visible/controllable/powerable.
>
> From the hardware point:
> - There is a PMU
> - The PMU is connected to the board supplies
> - Both WiFi and BT parts are connected to the PMU
> - The BT_EN / WLAN_EN pins are not connected to the PMU
>
> So, not representing the PMU in the device tree is a simplification.
>

What about the existing WLAN and BT users of similar packages? We
would have to deprecate a lot of existing bindings. I don't think it's
worth it.

The WCN7850 is already described in bindings as consuming what is PMUs
inputs and not its outputs.

Bart

> >
> > Neil
> >
> > >
> > > Moreover, I think we definitely want to move BT driver to use only the
> > > pwrseq power up method. Doing it in the other way results in the code
> > > duplication and possible issues because of the regulator / pwrseq
> > > taking different code paths.
>
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry