[PATCH 1/2] phy: samsung: phy-exynos-pcie: sanitize init/power_on callbacks

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:43:03PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:05:30PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 12-07-22, 15:12, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 11:55:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > On 29-06-22, 00:04, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > > > The exynos-pcie driver called phy_power_on() and then phy_init() for some
> > > > > historical reasons. However the generic PHY framework assumes that the
> > > > > proper sequence is to call phy_init() first, then phy_power_on(). The
> > > > > operations done by both functions should be considered as one action and
> > > > > as such they are called by the exynos-pcie driver (without doing anything
> > > > > between them). The initialization is just a sequence of register writes,
> > > > > which cannot be altered, without breaking the hardware operation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > To match the generic PHY framework requirement, simply move all register
> > > > > writes to the phy_init()/phy_exit() and drop power_on()/power_off()
> > > > > callbacks. This way the driver will also work with the old (incorrect)
> > > > > PHY initialization call sequence.
> > > > 
> > > > Is the plan to merge thru pcie tree?
> > > 
> > > I guess these patches should go together.  I don't see any major
> > > exynos series pending, but I do have two minor pci-exynos.c patches in
> > > the queue.
> > > 
> > > If you ack it (after resolution of your question below) I'd be happy
> > > to take both if it doesn't cause trouble for you.
> > 
> > Done now.
> 
> Is this an ack?
> 
> I didn't see any response to your question (added back below).  Are
> you happy with the patch as-is?

Oops, sorry, I missed your ack [1].  That was more recent than your
question, so I assume you're ok with the patch as-is.

I *would* like an ack from the maintainer, but I'm not sure whether
Jingoo is still paying attention to pci-exynos.c.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/YtFQ67MmloipjNzj@matsya

> > > > > @@ -51,6 +51,13 @@ static int exynos5433_pcie_phy_init(struct phy *phy)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >       struct exynos_pcie_phy *ep = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> > > > >
> > > > > +     regmap_update_bits(ep->pmureg, EXYNOS5433_PMU_PCIE_PHY_OFFSET,
> > > > > +                        BIT(0), 1);
> > > > > +     regmap_update_bits(ep->fsysreg, PCIE_EXYNOS5433_PHY_GLOBAL_RESET,
> > > > > +                        PCIE_APP_REQ_EXIT_L1_MODE, 0);
> > > > > +     regmap_update_bits(ep->fsysreg, PCIE_EXYNOS5433_PHY_L1SUB_CM_CON,
> > > > > +                        PCIE_REFCLK_GATING_EN, 0);
> > > > > +
> > > > 
> > > > why not retain exynos5433_pcie_phy_power_on() and call it from here and
> > > > drop in ops. It would be clear to reader that these are for turning on
> > > > the phy...