| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:15:12 +0530
From: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@...eaurora.org>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com
Cc: linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
shawn.lin@...k-chips.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
georgi.djakov@...aro.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
asutoshd@...eaurora.org, stummala@...eaurora.org,
venkatg@...eaurora.org, jeremymc@...hat.com,
bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, riteshh@...eaurora.org,
vbadigan@...eaurora.org, dianders@...gle.com,
sayalil@...eaurora.org, Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] mmc: sdhci: Allow platform controlled voltage
switching
On 7/17/2018 2:12 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 17/07/18 11:40, Vijay Viswanath wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/17/2018 1:00 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 17/07/18 08:14, Vijay Viswanath wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2018 4:37 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>>> On 21/06/18 15:23, Vijay Viswanath wrote:
>>>>>> Some controllers can have internal mechanism to inform the SW that it
>>>>>> is ready for voltage switching. For such controllers, changing voltage
>>>>>> before the HW is ready can result in various issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add a quirk, which can be used by drivers of such controllers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@...eaurora.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
>>>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h | 2 ++
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>>>>> index 1c828e0..f0346d4 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>>>>> @@ -1615,7 +1615,8 @@ void sdhci_set_power_noreg(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>>>>> unsigned char mode,
>>>>>> void sdhci_set_power(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned char mode,
>>>>>> unsigned short vdd)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> - if (IS_ERR(host->mmc->supply.vmmc))
>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(host->mmc->supply.vmmc) ||
>>>>>> + (host->quirks2 & SDHCI_QUIRK2_INTERNAL_PWR_CTL))
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you should provide your own ->set_power() instead of this
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> will do
>>>>
>>>>>> sdhci_set_power_noreg(host, mode, vdd);
>>>>>> else
>>>>>> sdhci_set_power_reg(host, mode, vdd);
>>>>>> @@ -2009,7 +2010,9 @@ int sdhci_start_signal_voltage_switch(struct
>>>>>> mmc_host *mmc,
>>>>>> ctrl &= ~SDHCI_CTRL_VDD_180;
>>>>>> sdhci_writew(host, ctrl, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2);
>>>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>>>>>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc) &&
>>>>>> + !(host->quirks2 &
>>>>>> + SDHCI_QUIRK2_INTERNAL_PWR_CTL)) {
>>>>>
>>>>> And your own ->start_signal_voltage_switch()
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sdhci_msm_start_signal_voltage_switch() would be an exact copy of
>>>> sdhci_start_signal_voltage_switch()..... will incorporate this if not using
>>>> quirk.
>>>>
>>>>>> ret = mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc(mmc, ios);
>>>>>> if (ret) {
>>>>>> pr_warn("%s: Switching to 3.3V signalling voltage
>>>>>> failed\n",
>>>>>> @@ -2032,7 +2035,8 @@ int sdhci_start_signal_voltage_switch(struct
>>>>>> mmc_host *mmc,
>>>>>> case MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_180:
>>>>>> if (!(host->flags & SDHCI_SIGNALING_180))
>>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>>>>>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc) &&
>>>>>> + !(host->quirks2 & SDHCI_QUIRK2_INTERNAL_PWR_CTL)) {
>>>>>> ret = mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc(mmc, ios);
>>>>>> if (ret) {
>>>>>> pr_warn("%s: Switching to 1.8V signalling voltage
>>>>>> failed\n",
>>>>>> @@ -3485,7 +3489,10 @@ int sdhci_setup_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
>>>>>> * the host can take the appropriate action if regulators are not
>>>>>> * available.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> - ret = mmc_regulator_get_supply(mmc);
>>>>>> + if (!(host->quirks2 & SDHCI_QUIRK2_INTERNAL_PWR_CTL))
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we expect mmc_regulator_get_supply() to have been called, this could
>>>>> be:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (!mmc->supply.vmmc) {
>>>>> ret = mmc_regulator_get_supply(mmc);
>>>>> enable_vqmmc = true;
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> ret = 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>>> + ret = mmc_regulator_get_supply(mmc);
>>>>>> + else
>>>>>> + ret = 0;
>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>> @@ -3736,7 +3743,10 @@ int sdhci_setup_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
>>>>>> /* If vqmmc regulator and no 1.8V signalling, then there's no
>>>>>> UHS */
>>>>>> if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>>>>>> - ret = regulator_enable(mmc->supply.vqmmc);
>>>>>> + if (!(host->quirks2 & SDHCI_QUIRK2_INTERNAL_PWR_CTL))
>>>>>
>>>>> And this could be:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (enable_vqmmc)
>>>>> ret = regulator_enable(mmc->supply.vqmmc);
>>>>> else
>>>>> ret = 0;
>>>>> > However, you still need to ensure
>>>>> regulator_disable(mmc->supply.vqmmc) is
>>>>> only called if regulator_enable() was called.
>>>> I missed this. Will cover it.
>>>>
>>>> Also I missed one more place where we are doing regulator_disable. During
>>>> sdhci-msm unbinding, we would end up doing an extra regulator disable
>>>> (thanks Evan for pointing it out) in sdhci_remove_host.
>>>>
>>>> To avoid the quirk( or having any flag), it would require copying the code
>>>> of sdhci_start_signal_voltage_switch() and sdhci_remove_host() and creating
>>>
>>> You do not need to duplicate sdhci_remove_host(), just change it so that it
>>> only disables what was enabled i.e.
>>>
>>> if (host->vqmmc_enabled)
>>> regulator_disable(mmc->supply.vqmmc);
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so we will be adding a new flag "vqmmc_enabled" in sdhci_host, ryt ?
>
> Yes
>
Ok.
Any particular reason why we are avoiding quirk and instead adding a new
flag ?
>> Just wanted to clarify
>>
>>>> 2 new functions in sdhci_msm layer which would do the exact same as above,
>>>> with just the regulator parts removed.
>>>>
>>>> This looks messy (considering any future changes to the 2 sdhci API will
>>>> need to be copied to their duplicate sdhci_msm API) and a bit overkill to
>>>> avoid quirk. At the same time, I don't know how useful such a quirk would be
>>>> to other platform drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know your view/suggestions.
>>>
>>> Let's try without the quirk.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> + ret = regulator_enable(mmc->supply.vqmmc);
>>>>>> + else
>>>>>> + ret = 0;
>>>>>> if (!regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 1700000,
>>>>>> 1950000))
>>>>>> host->caps1 &= ~(SDHCI_SUPPORT_SDR104 |
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>>>>>> index 23966f8..3b0c97a 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>>>>>> @@ -450,6 +450,8 @@ struct sdhci_host {
>>>>>> * obtainable timeout.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> #define SDHCI_QUIRK2_DISABLE_HW_TIMEOUT (1<<17)
>>>>>> +/* Regulator voltage changes are being done from platform layer */
>>>>>> +#define SDHCI_QUIRK2_INTERNAL_PWR_CTL (1<<18)
>>>>>
>>>>> So maybe the quirk is not needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> int irq; /* Device IRQ */
>>>>>> void __iomem *ioaddr; /* Mapped address */
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the review & suggestions!
>>>> Vijay
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists