Date:   Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:47:51 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Manu Gautam <mgautam@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] dt-bindings: phy-qcom-usb2: Add support to
 override tuning values

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Manu Gautam <mgautam@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/10/2018 1:48 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:38:23PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Manu Gautam <mgautam@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>> To improve eye diagram for PHYs on different boards of same SOC,
>>>> some parameters may need to be changed. Provide device tree
>>>> properties to override these from board specific device tree
>>>> files. While at it, replace "qcom,qusb2-v2-phy" with compatible
>>>> string for USB2 PHY on sdm845 which was earlier added for
>>>> sdm845 only.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Manu Gautam <mgautam@...eaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qusb2-phy.txt        | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qusb2-phy.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qusb2-phy.txt
>>>> index 42c9742..0ed140a 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qusb2-phy.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qusb2-phy.txt
>>>> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ QUSB2 controller supports LS/FS/HS usb connectivity on Qualcomm chipsets.
>>>>  Required properties:
>>>>   - compatible: compatible list, contains
>>>>                "qcom,msm8996-qusb2-phy" for 14nm PHY on msm8996,
>>>> -              "qcom,qusb2-v2-phy" for QUSB2 V2 PHY.
>>>> +              "qcom,sdm845-qusb2-phy" for 10nm PHY on sdm845.
>>>>
>>>>   - reg: offset and length of the PHY register set.
>>>>   - #phy-cells: must be 0.
>>>> @@ -27,6 +27,23 @@ Optional properties:
>>>>                 tuning parameter value for qusb2 phy.
>>>>
>>>>   - qcom,tcsr-syscon: Phandle to TCSR syscon register region.
>>> Just to confirm: the new properties below work just fine on the old
>>> msm8996 PHY too, right?
> No it won't as register layouts and bit fields are different. Also IMP_CTRL
> register doesnt exist for msm8996. I will mention that explicitly here.

Thanks!  Yeah, definitely document which properties only work on
sdm845 and which ones work everywhere.


>>>> + - qcom,imp-res-offset-value: It is a 6 bit value that specifies offset to be
>>>> +               added to PHY refgen RESCODE via IMP_CTRL1 register. It is a PHY
>>>> +               tuning paramter that may vary for different boards of same SOC.
>>>> + - qcom,hstx-trim-value: It is a 4 bit value that specifies tuning for HSTX
>>>> +               output current. 0x0 value corresponding to 24mA which is maximum
>>>> +               current and 0xf corresponds to lowest current which is 15mA.
>>>> + - qcom,preemphasis-level: It is a 2 bit value that specifies pre-emphasis level.
>>>> +               Possible values are:
>>>> +               00: NONE
>>>> +               01: +5%
>>>> +               10: +10%
>>>> +               11: +15%
>>> The user of the device tree will expect to specify this in decimal,
>>> right?  So list the above as 0, 1, 2, 3.  ...not 00, 01, 10, 11.
> Fine.
>>> (though below I suggest that specifying 0, 1, 2, 3 is probably not
>>> quite the right way to describe this property).
>>>
>>>
>>>> +- qcom,preemphasis-width: It is a 1 bit value that specifies how long the HSTX
>>>> +               pre-emphasis (specified using qcom,preemphasis-level) must be in
>>>> +               effect. Possible values are:
>>>> +               0: Full-bit width
>>>> +               1: Half-bit width
>>> Perhaps just make this a boolean property.  If it exists then you get
>>> the non-default case.  AKA: if the default is full bit width, then
>>> you'd allow a boolean property "qcom,preemphasis-half-width" to
>>> override.  If the default is half bit width then you'd allow
>>> "qcom,preemphasis-full-width" to override.
>
> Default property value for an SOC is specified in driver and could vary from
> soc to soc. Hence, from board devicetree for different SOCs we might need
> to select separate widths overriding default driver values.
> Alternative is to have two bool properties each for half and full-width. Did
> you actually mean that?

It's OK to keep it as-is then.  ...but please document what the
default is for every SoC/port combination that supports this property.


>>> For all the above optional bits, please indicate what the default is
>>> if they aren't specified.  If you have to specify a different default
>>> for sdm845 vs. msm8996 then so be it (though it would be nice to avoid
>>> it by changing the default for sdm845 unless that's totally crazy).
> Sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> Overall this looks pretty good to me.  Certainly the descriptions are
>>> very understandable and this will make tuning on a per-board /
>>> per-port basis much easier!  Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> One last overall comment is that ideally we could make the device tree
>>> a little bit more human readable.  Right now we'll have a set of
>>> properties that looks like this (numbers made up):
>>>
>>> qcom,imp-res-offset-value = <0x13>;
>>> qcom,hstx-trim-value = <0x7>;
>>> qcom,preemphasis-level = <1>;
>>> qcom,preemphasis-width = <0>;
>>>
>>>
>>> One option to make that more readable would be to change the units, AKA:
>>>
>>> qcom,hstx-trim-ma = <18>;
>>> qcom,preemphasis-percent = <5>;
>>>
>>> ...then the code would translate from these human-readable values to
>>> the real numbers.
>> Yes, we often do that. However, there properties are very specific to
>> this device and making the driver translate back to h/w values doesn't
>> add much.
>
> Thanks for review Rob. I too agree with both the viewpoints.
> Doug, if it is not of much concern then can I stick with current approach?

I certainly would appreciate the #defines and believe they add to the
readability, but if you're dead set against it and Rob says it's OK, I
won't yell too loudly.


>>> Another option would be to add a #include to the bindings.  I'd defer
>>> to the wisdom of the bindings guys about if this is better or worse
>>> than adding the units, but personally I like it better because:
>>> * You get a compile-time error if you use an unsupported value.
>>> * You don't need to add the code to translate.
>> This is fine for me. Really, I'm fine with it as-is, but #defines make
>> some people happy.
>>
>> Rob

Powered by blists - more mailing lists