Date:   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 15:52:39 +0300
From:   Aapo Vienamo <avienamo@...dia.com>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
CC:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        "Mikko Perttunen" <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/40] mmc: tegra: Reconfigure pad voltages during
 voltage switching

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 14:43:46 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 07:32:02PM +0300, Aapo Vienamo wrote:
> > Parse the pinctrl state and nvidia,only-1-8-v properties from the device
> > tree. Validate the pinctrl and regulator configuration before unmasking
> > UHS modes. Implement pad voltage state reconfiguration in the mmc
> > start_signal_voltage_switch() callback. Add NVQUIRK_NEEDS_PAD_CONTROL
> > and add set it for Tegra210 and Tegra186.
> > 
> > The pad configuration is done in the mmc callback because the order of
> > pad reconfiguration and sdhci voltage switch depend on the voltage to
> > which the transition occurs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Aapo Vienamo <avienamo@...dia.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-tegra.c | 138 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 131 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-tegra.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-tegra.c
> > index ddf00166..7d98455 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-tegra.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-tegra.c
> > @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@
> >  #include <linux/io.h>
> >  #include <linux/of.h>
> >  #include <linux/of_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h>
> > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> >  #include <linux/reset.h>
> >  #include <linux/mmc/card.h>
> >  #include <linux/mmc/host.h>
> > @@ -55,6 +57,7 @@
> >  #define NVQUIRK_ENABLE_SDR104		BIT(4)
> >  #define NVQUIRK_ENABLE_DDR50		BIT(5)
> >  #define NVQUIRK_HAS_PADCALIB		BIT(6)
> > +#define NVQUIRK_NEEDS_PAD_CONTROL	BIT(7)
> >  
> >  struct sdhci_tegra_soc_data {
> >  	const struct sdhci_pltfm_data *pdata;
> > @@ -66,8 +69,12 @@ struct sdhci_tegra {
> >  	struct gpio_desc *power_gpio;
> >  	bool ddr_signaling;
> >  	bool pad_calib_required;
> > +	bool pad_control_available;
> >  
> >  	struct reset_control *rst;
> > +	struct pinctrl *pinctrl_sdmmc;
> > +	struct pinctrl_state *pinctrl_state_3v3;
> > +	struct pinctrl_state *pinctrl_state_1v8;
> >  };
> >  
> >  static u16 tegra_sdhci_readw(struct sdhci_host *host, int reg)
> > @@ -138,12 +145,46 @@ static unsigned int tegra_sdhci_get_ro(struct sdhci_host *host)
> >  	return mmc_gpio_get_ro(host->mmc);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static bool tegra_sdhci_is_pad_and_regulator_valid(struct sdhci_host *host)
> > +{
> > +	struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
> > +	struct sdhci_tegra *tegra_host = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host);
> > +	int has_1v8, has_3v3;  
> 
> Can these be boolean?

In some cases regulator_is_supported_voltage() can return a negative
error code. 

> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The SoCs which have NVQUIRK_NEEDS_PAD_CONTROL require software pad
> > +	 * voltage configuration in order to perform voltage switching. This
> > +	 * means that valid pinctrl info is required on SDHCI instances capable
> > +	 * of performing voltage switching. Whether or not an SDHCI instance is
> > +	 * capable of voltage switching is determined based on the regulator.
> > +	 */
> > +
> > +	if (!(tegra_host->soc_data->nvquirks & NVQUIRK_NEEDS_PAD_CONTROL))
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	if (IS_ERR(host->mmc->supply.vqmmc))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	has_1v8 = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host->mmc->supply.vqmmc,
> > +						 1700000, 1950000);
> > +
> > +	has_3v3 = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host->mmc->supply.vqmmc,
> > +						 2700000, 3600000);
> > +
> > +	if (has_1v8 == 1 && has_3v3 == 1)
> > +		return tegra_host->pad_control_available;
> > +
> > +	/* Fixed voltage, no pad control required. */
> > +	return true;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void tegra_sdhci_reset(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 mask)
> >  {
> >  	struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
> >  	struct sdhci_tegra *tegra_host = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host);
> >  	const struct sdhci_tegra_soc_data *soc_data = tegra_host->soc_data;
> >  	u32 misc_ctrl, clk_ctrl;
> > +	bool pad_and_regulators_valid;  
> 
> This seems to be used only once. Why not simply use the function call in
> the if condition directly?
> 
> >  
> >  	sdhci_reset(host, mask);
> >  
> > @@ -160,13 +201,8 @@ static void tegra_sdhci_reset(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 mask)
> >  
> >  	clk_ctrl &= ~SDHCI_CLOCK_CTRL_SPI_MODE_CLKEN_OVERRIDE;
> >  
> > -	/*
> > -	 * If the board does not define a regulator for the SDHCI
> > -	 * IO voltage, then don't advertise support for UHS modes
> > -	 * even if the device supports it because the IO voltage
> > -	 * cannot be configured.
> > -	 */
> > -	if (!IS_ERR(host->mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
> > +	pad_and_regulators_valid = tegra_sdhci_is_pad_and_regulator_valid(host);
> > +	if (pad_and_regulators_valid) {
> >  		/* Erratum: Enable SDHCI spec v3.00 support */
> >  		if (soc_data->nvquirks & NVQUIRK_ENABLE_SDHCI_SPEC_300)
> >  			misc_ctrl |= SDHCI_MISC_CTRL_ENABLE_SDHCI_SPEC_300;
> > @@ -286,6 +322,84 @@ static int tegra_sdhci_execute_tuning(struct sdhci_host *host, u32 opcode)
> >  	return mmc_send_tuning(host->mmc, opcode, NULL);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int tegra_sdhci_set_padctrl(struct sdhci_host *host, int voltage)
> > +{
> > +	struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
> > +	struct sdhci_tegra *tegra_host = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host);
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	if (!tegra_host->pad_control_available)
> > +		return 0;  
> 
> This seems unnecessary. ->pad_control_available is set at the end of
> tegra_sdhci_init_pinctrl_info() after we have successfully obtained
> the various pinctrl states. At the same time, we only set up the
> ->start_signal_voltage_switch() callback when we have pinctrl states  
> available, so this is in fact a duplicate check, right? If we don't
> pad control, then the callback will be NULL and we never and up
> calling tegra_sdhci_set_padctrl().

True, this seems to be a remnant of previous itrations of the series.

> > +
> > +	if (voltage == MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_180) {
> > +		ret = pinctrl_select_state(tegra_host->pinctrl_sdmmc,
> > +					   tegra_host->pinctrl_state_1v8);
> > +		if (ret < 0)
> > +			dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc),
> > +				"setting 1.8V failed, ret: %d\n", ret);
> > +	} else {
> > +		ret = pinctrl_select_state(tegra_host->pinctrl_sdmmc,
> > +					   tegra_host->pinctrl_state_3v3);
> > +		if (ret < 0)
> > +			dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc),
> > +				"setting 3.3V failed, ret: %d\n", ret);
> > +	}  
> 
> Can we remove the ", ret" from these error messages. The user doesn't
> understand what ret means in the context of this message. Just a:
> 
> 	"... failed: %d\n"
> 
> is good enough.
> 
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sdhci_tegra_start_signal_voltage_switch(struct mmc_host *mmc,
> > +						   struct mmc_ios *ios)
> > +{
> > +	struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
> > +	int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (ios->signal_voltage == MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_330) {
> > +		ret = tegra_sdhci_set_padctrl(host, ios->signal_voltage);
> > +		if (ret < 0)
> > +			return ret;
> > +		ret = sdhci_start_signal_voltage_switch(mmc, ios);
> > +	} else if (ios->signal_voltage == MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_180) {
> > +		ret = sdhci_start_signal_voltage_switch(mmc, ios);
> > +		if (ret < 0)
> > +			return ret;
> > +		ret = tegra_sdhci_set_padctrl(host, ios->signal_voltage);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int tegra_sdhci_init_pinctrl_info(struct device *dev,
> > +					 struct sdhci_tegra *tegra_host)
> > +{
> > +	tegra_host->pinctrl_sdmmc = devm_pinctrl_get(dev);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(tegra_host->pinctrl_sdmmc)) {
> > +		dev_dbg(dev, "No pinctrl info, err: %ld\n",
> > +			PTR_ERR(tegra_host->pinctrl_sdmmc));
> > +		return -1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	tegra_host->pinctrl_state_3v3 =
> > +		pinctrl_lookup_state(tegra_host->pinctrl_sdmmc, "sdmmc-3v3");
> > +	if (IS_ERR(tegra_host->pinctrl_state_3v3)) {
> > +		dev_warn(dev, "Missing 3.3V pad state, err: %ld\n",
> > +			 PTR_ERR(tegra_host->pinctrl_state_3v3));
> > +		return -1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	tegra_host->pinctrl_state_1v8 =
> > +		pinctrl_lookup_state(tegra_host->pinctrl_sdmmc, "sdmmc-1v8");
> > +	if (IS_ERR(tegra_host->pinctrl_state_1v8)) {
> > +		dev_warn(dev, "Missing 1.8V pad state, err: %ld\n",
> > +			 PTR_ERR(tegra_host->pinctrl_state_3v3));
> > +		return -1;
> > +	}  
> 
> Why not propagate the error message? I know we really only care about
> success vs. failure in the caller, but it will be confusing to anyone
> that may eventually end up looking at the error code to see -EPERM.

Fair point.

> If we really don't care about the return error, why not just make the
> function return a boolean (false for failure, true for success)?
> 
> Also, same as earlier, can we remove ", err" from the messages? That's
> code specific context and doesn't belong in an error message.
> 
> > +
> > +	tegra_host->pad_control_available = true;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void tegra_sdhci_voltage_switch(struct sdhci_host *host)
> >  {
> >  	struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
> > @@ -419,6 +533,7 @@ static const struct sdhci_pltfm_data sdhci_tegra210_pdata = {
> >  
> >  static const struct sdhci_tegra_soc_data soc_data_tegra210 = {
> >  	.pdata = &sdhci_tegra210_pdata,
> > +	.nvquirks = NVQUIRK_NEEDS_PAD_CONTROL,
> >  };
> >  
> >  static const struct sdhci_pltfm_data sdhci_tegra186_pdata = {
> > @@ -442,6 +557,7 @@ static const struct sdhci_pltfm_data sdhci_tegra186_pdata = {
> >  
> >  static const struct sdhci_tegra_soc_data soc_data_tegra186 = {
> >  	.pdata = &sdhci_tegra186_pdata,
> > +	.nvquirks = NVQUIRK_NEEDS_PAD_CONTROL,
> >  };
> >  
> >  static const struct of_device_id sdhci_tegra_dt_match[] = {
> > @@ -478,8 +594,16 @@ static int sdhci_tegra_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	tegra_host = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host);
> >  	tegra_host->ddr_signaling = false;
> >  	tegra_host->pad_calib_required = false;
> > +	tegra_host->pad_control_available = false;
> >  	tegra_host->soc_data = soc_data;
> >  
> > +	if (soc_data->nvquirks & NVQUIRK_NEEDS_PAD_CONTROL) {  
> 
> Nit: I think all of these quirks could eventually just move into boolean
> flags to make tests like this easier to read. Nothing to worry about for
> now, though.
> 
> Thierry
> 
> > +		rc = tegra_sdhci_init_pinctrl_info(&pdev->dev, tegra_host);
> > +		if (rc == 0)
> > +			host->mmc_host_ops.start_signal_voltage_switch =
> > +				sdhci_tegra_start_signal_voltage_switch;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	rc = mmc_of_parse(host->mmc);
> >  	if (rc)
> >  		goto err_parse_dt;
> > -- 
> > 2.7.4
> >   

Powered by blists - more mailing lists