[PATCH v2 3/3] scsi: ufs: rockchip: init support for UFS

[Manivannan Sadhasivam]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 02:24:31PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
> 在 2024/8/12 12:10, Manivannan Sadhasivam 写道:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 09:28:26AM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
> > > JHi Mani,
> > > 
> > > 在 2024/8/10 17:28, Manivannan Sadhasivam 写道:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 04:16:41PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > > > > +static int ufs_rockchip_hce_enable_notify(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> > > > > > > +					 enum ufs_notify_change_status status)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	int err = 0;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	if (status == PRE_CHANGE) {
> > > > > > > +		int retry_outer = 3;
> > > > > > > +		int retry_inner;
> > > > > > > +start:
> > > > > > > +		if (ufshcd_is_hba_active(hba))
> > > > > > > +			/* change controller state to "reset state" */
> > > > > > > +			ufshcd_hba_stop(hba);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +		/* UniPro link is disabled at this point */
> > > > > > > +		ufshcd_set_link_off(hba);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +		/* start controller initialization sequence */
> > > > > > > +		ufshcd_writel(hba, CONTROLLER_ENABLE, REG_CONTROLLER_ENABLE);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +		usleep_range(100, 200);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +		/* wait for the host controller to complete initialization */
> > > > > > > +		retry_inner = 50;
> > > > > > > +		while (!ufshcd_is_hba_active(hba)) {
> > > > > > > +			if (retry_inner) {
> > > > > > > +				retry_inner--;
> > > > > > > +			} else {
> > > > > > > +				dev_err(hba->dev,
> > > > > > > +					"Controller enable failed\n");
> > > > > > > +				if (retry_outer) {
> > > > > > > +					retry_outer--;
> > > > > > > +					goto start;
> > > > > > > +				}
> > > > > > > +				return -EIO;
> > > > > > > +			}
> > > > > > > +			usleep_range(1000, 1100);
> > > > > > > +		}
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You just duplicated ufshcd_hba_execute_hce() here. Why? This doesn't make sense.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since we set UFSHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_HCE, and we also need to do someting
> > > > > which is very similar to ufshcd_hba_execute_hce(), before calling
> > > > > ufshcd_dme_reset(). Similar but not totally the same. I'll try to see if
> > > > > we can export ufshcd_hba_execute_hce() to make full use of it.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > But you are starting the controller using REG_CONTROLLER_ENABLE. Isn't that
> > > > supposed to be broken if you set UFSHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_HCE? Or I am
> > > > misunderstanding the quirk?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Our controller doesn't work with exiting code, whether setting
> > > UFSHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_HCE or not.
> > > 
> > 
> > Okay. Then this means you do not need this quirk at all.
> > 
> > > 
> > > For UFSHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_HCE case, it calls ufshcd_dme_reset（）first,
> > > but we need to set REG_CONTROLLER_ENABLE first.
> > > 
> > > For !UFSHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_HCE case, namly ufshcd_hba_execute_hce, it
> > > sets REG_CONTROLLER_ENABLE  first but never send DMA_RESET and calls
> > > ufshcd_dme_enable.
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't see where ufshcd_dme_enable() is getting called for
> > !UFSHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_HCE case.
> > 
> > > So the closet code path is to go through UFSHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_HCE case,
> > > and set REG_CONTROLLER_ENABLE by adding hce_enable_notify hook.
> > > 
> > 
> > No, that is abusing the quirk. But I'm confused about why your controller wants
> > resetting the unipro stack _after_ enabling the controller? Why can't it be
> > reset before?
> > 
> 
> It can't be. The DME_RESET to reset the unipro stack will be failed
> without enabling REG_CONTROLLER_ENABLE. And the controller does want us
> to reset the unipro stack before other coming UICs.
> 
> So I considered it's a kind of broken HCE case as well. Should I add a
> new quirk or add a new hba_enable hook in ufs_hba_variant_ops? Or just
> use UFSHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_HCE ?
> 

IMO, you should add a new quirk and use it directly in ufshcd_hba_execute_hce().
But you need to pick the quirk name as per the actual quirky behavior of the
controller.

> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +	} else { /* POST_CHANGE */
> > > > > > > +		err = ufshcd_vops_phy_initialization(hba);
> > > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	return err;
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > > > > +static const struct dev_pm_ops ufs_rockchip_pm_ops = {
> > > > > > > +	SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(ufs_rockchip_suspend, ufs_rockchip_resume)
> > > > > > > +	SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(ufs_rockchip_runtime_suspend, ufs_rockchip_runtime_resume, NULL)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why can't you use ufshcd PM ops as like other vendor drivers?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It doesn't work from the test. We have many use case to power down the
> > > > > controller and device, so there is no flow to recovery the link. Only
> > > > > when the first accessing to UFS fails, the ufshcd error handle recovery the
> > > > > link. This is not what we expect.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > What tests? The existing UFS controller drivers are used in production devices
> > > > and they never had a usecase to invent their own PM callbacks. So if your
> > > > controller is special, then you need to justify it more elaborately. If
> > > > something is missing in ufshcd callbacks, then we can add them.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > All the register got lost each time as we power down both controller & PHY
> > > and devices in suspend.
> > 
> > Which suspend? runtime or system suspend? I believe system suspend.
> 
> Both.
> 

With {rpm/spm}_lvl = 3, you should not power down the controller.

> > 
> > > So we have to restore the necessary
> > > registers and link. I didn't see where the code recovery the controller
> > > settings in ufshcd_resume, except ufshcd_err_handler（）triggers that.
> > > Am I missing any thing?
> > 
> > Can you explain what is causing the powerdown of the controller and PHY?
> > Because, ufshcd_suspend() just turns off the clocks and regulators (if
> > UFSHCD_CAP_AGGR_POWER_COLLAPSE is set) and spm_lvl 3 set by this driver only
> > puts the device in sleep mode and link in hibern8 state.
> > 
> 
> For runtime PM case, it's the power-domain driver will power down the
> controller and PHY if UFS stack is not active any more（autosuspend）.
> 
> For system PM case, it's the SoC's firmware to cutting of all the power
> for controller/PHY and device.
> 

Both cases are not matching the expectations of {rpm/spm}_lvl. So the platform
(power domain or the firmware) should be fixed. What if the user sets the
{rpm/spm}_lvl to 1? Will the platform power down the controller even then? If
so, then I'd say that the platform is broken and should be fixed.

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்