[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0c658d298aa8254b0ceb514793608ae@agner.ch>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 13:43:47 +0200
From: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>,
Michael Trimarchi <michael@...rulasolutions.com>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: allow 1.8V modes without
100/200MHz pinctrl states
On 05.07.2018 13:23, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 4 July 2018 at 17:07, Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch> wrote:
>> If pinctrl nodes for 100/200MHz are missing, the controller should
>> not select any mode which need signal frequencies 100MHz or higher.
>> To prevent such speed modes the driver currently uses the quirk flag
>> SDHCI_QUIRK2_NO_1_8_V. This works nicely for SD cards since 1.8V
>> signaling is required for all faster modes and slower modes use 3.3V
>> signaling only.
>>
>> However, there are eMMC modes which use 1.8V signaling and run below
>> 100MHz, e.g. DDR52 at 1.8V. With using SDHCI_QUIRK2_NO_1_8_V this
>> mode is prevented. When using a fixed 1.8V regulator as vqmmc-supply
>> the stack has no valid mode to use. In this tenuous situation the
>> kernel continuously prints voltage switching errors:
>> mmc1: Switching to 3.3V signalling voltage failed
>>
>> Avoid using SDHCI_QUIRK2_NO_1_8_V and prevent faster modes by
>> altering the SDHCI capability register. With that the stack is able
>> to select 1.8V modes even if no faster pinctrl states are available:
>> # cat /sys/kernel/debug/mmc1/ios
>> ...
>> timing spec: 8 (mmc DDR52)
>> signal voltage: 1 (1.80 V)
>> ...
>>
>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180628081331.13051-1-stefan@agner.ch
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
>
> I am fine with this. Do you want me to apply this for now, to get it tested?
>
Yes.
> I guess its also material for stable and as fix?
>
I guess. We probably want to wait until it gets some more testing?
> In regards to the printed warning, it sounds to me like a different
> issue, which we can solve on top. Right?
Yes different issue, which we can handle separately.
--
Stefan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists