| 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, 18 Sep 2018 17:05:14 +0530
From: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@...eaurora.org>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@...eaurora.org>,
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,
evgreen@...omium.org, dianders@...gle.com, sayalil@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 3/3] mmc: sdhci-msm: Use internal voltage control
Hi Adrian,
On 7/25/2018 7:34 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 20/07/18 13:46, Vijay Viswanath wrote:
>> Some sdhci-msm controllers require that voltage switching be done after
>> the HW is ready for it. The HW informs its readiness through power irq.
>> The voltage switching should happen only then.
>>
>> Use the quirk for internal voltage switching and then control the
>> voltage switching using power irq.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Asutosh Das <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Venkat Gopalakrishnan <venkatg@...eaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@...eaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 220 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 209 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> index a0dc3e1..47732a2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> @@ -43,7 +43,9 @@
>> #define CORE_PWRCTL_IO_LOW BIT(2)
>> #define CORE_PWRCTL_IO_HIGH BIT(3)
>> #define CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_SUCCESS BIT(0)
>> +#define CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_FAIL BIT(1)
>> #define CORE_PWRCTL_IO_SUCCESS BIT(2)
>> +#define CORE_PWRCTL_IO_FAIL BIT(3)
>> #define REQ_BUS_OFF BIT(0)
>> #define REQ_BUS_ON BIT(1)
>> #define REQ_IO_LOW BIT(2)
>> @@ -236,6 +238,14 @@ struct sdhci_msm_variant_info {
>> const struct sdhci_msm_offset *offset;
>> };
>>
>> +/* Holds voltage regulator information to be used by the driver*/
>> +struct sdhci_msm_vreg_info {
>> + bool vmmc_load;
>> + u32 vmmc_level[2];
>> + bool vqmmc_load;
>> + u32 vqmmc_level[2];
>> +};
> Kernel style is not to introduce structures that are only ever wholly
> contained within one other structure i.e. the members of struct
> sdhci_msm_vreg_info could just be in struct sdhci_msm_host instead.
Sure. Will move this to sdhci_msm_host
>> +
>> struct sdhci_msm_host {
>> struct platform_device *pdev;
>> void __iomem *core_mem; /* MSM SDCC mapped address */
>> @@ -258,6 +268,8 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host {
>> bool mci_removed;
>> const struct sdhci_msm_variant_ops *var_ops;
>> const struct sdhci_msm_offset *offset;
>> + struct sdhci_msm_vreg_info vreg_info;
>> + bool pltfm_init_done;
>> };
>>
>> static const struct sdhci_msm_offset *sdhci_priv_msm_offset(struct sdhci_host *host)
>> @@ -1314,11 +1326,13 @@ static void sdhci_msm_handle_pwr_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, int irq)
>> {
>> struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
>> struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host);
>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = host->mmc;
>> u32 irq_status, irq_ack = 0;
>> - int retry = 10;
>> + int retry = 10, ret = 0;
>> u32 pwr_state = 0, io_level = 0;
>> u32 config;
>> const struct sdhci_msm_offset *msm_offset = msm_host->offset;
>> + struct sdhci_msm_vreg_info vreg_info = msm_host->vreg_info;
>>
>> irq_status = msm_host_readl(msm_host, host,
>> msm_offset->core_pwrctl_status);
>> @@ -1351,14 +1365,91 @@ static void sdhci_msm_handle_pwr_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, int irq)
>>
>> /* Handle BUS ON/OFF*/
>> if (irq_status & CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_ON) {
>> - pwr_state = REQ_BUS_ON;
>> - io_level = REQ_IO_HIGH;
>> - irq_ack |= CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_SUCCESS;
>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vmmc)) {
>> + if (vreg_info.vmmc_load)
>> + ret = regulator_set_load(mmc->supply.vmmc,
>> + vreg_info.vmmc_level[1]);
>> + ret |= mmc_regulator_set_ocr(mmc, mmc->supply.vmmc,
>> + mmc->ios.vdd);
> Or-ing error numbers seems a bit weird. The code is a bit crammed also,
> so I suggest adding helper functions. For example consider something like:
>
> static int sdhci_msm_set_vmmc(struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host,
> struct mmc_host *mmc, int level)
> {
> int load = msm_host->vmmc_level[level];
> int ret;
>
> if (IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vmmc))
> return 0;
>
> if (msm_host->vmmc_load) {
> ret = regulator_set_load(mmc->supply.vmmc, load);
> if (ret)
> goto out;
> }
>
> ret = mmc_regulator_set_ocr(mmc, mmc->supply.vmmc, mmc->ios.vdd);
> out:
> if (ret)
> pr_err("%s: vmmc failed: %d\n", mmc_hostname(mmc), ret);
>
> return ret;
> }
Will update it as suggested.
>> + if (ret)
>> + pr_err("%s: vmmc enable failed: %d\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(mmc), ret);
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc) && !ret) {
>> + struct mmc_ios ios;
>> +
>> + if (vreg_info.vqmmc_load)
>> + ret = regulator_set_load(mmc->supply.vqmmc,
>> + vreg_info.vqmmc_level[1]);
>> + /*
>> + * The IO voltage regulator maynot always support
>> + * a voltage close to vdd. Set IO voltage based on
>> + * capability of the regulator.
>> + */
>> + if (msm_host->caps_0 & CORE_3_0V_SUPPORT)
>> + ios.signal_voltage = MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_330;
>> + else if (msm_host->caps_0 & CORE_1_8V_SUPPORT)
>> + ios.signal_voltage = MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_180;
>> + if (msm_host->caps_0 & CORE_VOLT_SUPPORT) {
>> + pr_err("%s: %s: setting signal voltage: %d\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(mmc), __func__,
>> + ios.signal_voltage);
> Why pr_err()?
This need not be pr_err. Will change it to pr_debug().
>> + ret |= mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc(mmc, &ios);
> Again I suggest createing a helper function and not or-ing error numbers.
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!ret)
>> + ret = regulator_enable(mmc->supply.vqmmc);
>> + if (ret)
>> + pr_err("%s: vqmmc enable failed: %d\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(mmc), ret);
>> + }
>> + if (!ret) {
>> + pwr_state = REQ_BUS_ON;
>> + io_level = REQ_IO_HIGH;
>> + irq_ack |= CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_SUCCESS;
>> + } else {
>> + pr_err("%s: BUS_ON req failed(%d). irq_status: 0x%08x\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(mmc), ret, irq_status);
>> + irq_ack |= CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_FAIL;
>> + }
>> }
>> if (irq_status & CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_OFF) {
>> - pwr_state = REQ_BUS_OFF;
>> - io_level = REQ_IO_LOW;
>> - irq_ack |= CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_SUCCESS;
>> + /*
>> + * During platform initialization, we may get BUS_OFF request
>> + * and turn off the supply. EMMC devices expect Power off
>> + * notification before being turned off. So wait till platform
>> + * initialization is over to actually turn off power.
>> + */
>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vmmc) && msm_host->pltfm_init_done) {
>> + if (vreg_info.vmmc_load)
>> + ret = regulator_set_load(mmc->supply.vmmc,
>> + vreg_info.vmmc_level[0]);
>> + ret |= mmc_regulator_set_ocr(mmc, mmc->supply.vmmc,
>> + mmc->ios.vdd);
>> + if (ret)
>> + pr_err("%s: vmmc disabling failed: %d\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(mmc), ret);
>> + }
> So with the function above, that would be:
>
> if (msm_host->pltfm_init_done)
> ret = sdhci_msm_set_vmmc(msm_host, mmc, 0)
>
>> + if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc) && msm_host->pltfm_init_done &&
>> + !ret) {
>> + if (vreg_info.vqmmc_load)
>> + ret = regulator_set_load(mmc->supply.vqmmc,
>> + vreg_info.vqmmc_level[0]);
>> + ret |= regulator_disable(mmc->supply.vqmmc);
>> + if (ret)
>> + pr_err("%s: vqmmc disabling failed: %d\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(mmc), ret);
>> + }
>> + if (!ret) {
>> + pwr_state = REQ_BUS_OFF;
>> + io_level = REQ_IO_LOW;
>> + irq_ack |= CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_SUCCESS;
>> + } else {
>> + pr_err("%s: BUS_ON req failed(%d). irq_status: 0x%08x\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(mmc), ret, irq_status);
>> + irq_ack |= CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_FAIL;
>> + }
>> }
>> /* Handle IO LOW/HIGH */
>> if (irq_status & CORE_PWRCTL_IO_LOW) {
>> @@ -1370,6 +1461,15 @@ static void sdhci_msm_handle_pwr_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, int irq)
>> irq_ack |= CORE_PWRCTL_IO_SUCCESS;
>> }
>>
>> + if (io_level && !IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc) && !pwr_state) {
>> + ret = mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc(mmc, &mmc->ios);
>> + if (ret)
>> + pr_err("%s: IO_level setting failed(%d). signal_voltage: %d, vdd: %d irq_status: 0x%08x\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(mmc), ret,
>> + mmc->ios.signal_voltage, mmc->ios.vdd,
>> + irq_status);
>> + }
>> +
>> /*
>> * The driver has to acknowledge the interrupt, switch voltages and
>> * report back if it succeded or not to this register. The voltage
>> @@ -1415,10 +1515,9 @@ static void sdhci_msm_handle_pwr_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, int irq)
>> msm_host->curr_pwr_state = pwr_state;
>> if (io_level)
>> msm_host->curr_io_level = io_level;
>> -
>> pr_debug("%s: %s: Handled IRQ(%d), irq_status=0x%x, ack=0x%x\n",
>> - mmc_hostname(msm_host->mmc), __func__, irq, irq_status,
>> - irq_ack);
>> + mmc_hostname(msm_host->mmc), __func__,
>> + irq, irq_status, irq_ack);
> Seem to be some unrelated whitespace changes here.
>
>> }
>>
>> static irqreturn_t sdhci_msm_pwr_irq(int irq, void *data)
>> @@ -1563,6 +1662,13 @@ static void sdhci_msm_writeb(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 val, int reg)
>> sdhci_msm_check_power_status(host, req_type);
>> }
>>
>> +static void sdhci_msm_set_power(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned char mode,
>> + unsigned short vdd)
>> +{
>> + sdhci_set_power_noreg(host, mode, vdd);
> Why not just have .set_power = sdhci_set_power_noreg()
You are right. Will remove sdhci_msm_set_power()
>
>> +
>> +}
>> +
>> static void sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host)
>> {
>> struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc;
>> @@ -1605,6 +1711,91 @@ static void sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host)
>> pr_debug("%s: supported caps: 0x%08x\n", mmc_hostname(mmc), caps);
>> }
>>
>> +static int sdhci_msm_register_vreg(struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + ret = mmc_regulator_get_supply(msm_host->mmc);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> + if (device_property_read_u32_array(&msm_host->pdev->dev,
>> + "vmmc-current-level",
>> + msm_host->vreg_info.vmmc_level, 2) >= 0)
>> + msm_host->vreg_info.vmmc_load = true;
>> + if (device_property_read_u32_array(&msm_host->pdev->dev,
>> + "vqmmc-current-level",
>> + msm_host->vreg_info.vqmmc_level, 2) >= 0)
>> + msm_host->vreg_info.vqmmc_load = true;
>> +
>> + sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int sdhci_msm_start_signal_voltage_switch(struct mmc_host *mmc,
>> + struct mmc_ios *ios)
>> +{
>> + struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
>> + u16 ctrl;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Signal Voltage Switching is only applicable for Host Controllers
>> + * v3.00 and above.
>> + */
>> + if (host->version < SDHCI_SPEC_300)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + ctrl = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2);
>> +
>> + switch (ios->signal_voltage) {
>> + case MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_330:
>> + if (!(host->flags & SDHCI_SIGNALING_330))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + /* Set 1.8V Signal Enable in the Host Control2 register to 0 */
>> + ctrl &= ~SDHCI_CTRL_VDD_180;
>> + sdhci_writew(host, ctrl, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2);
>> +
>> + /* 3.3V regulator output should be stable within 5 ms */
>> + ctrl = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2);
>> + if (!(ctrl & SDHCI_CTRL_VDD_180))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + pr_warn("%s: 3.3V regulator output did not became stable\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(mmc));
>> +
>> + return -EAGAIN;
>> + case MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_180:
>> + if (!(host->flags & SDHCI_SIGNALING_180))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Enable 1.8V Signal Enable in the Host Control2
>> + * register
>> + */
>> + ctrl |= SDHCI_CTRL_VDD_180;
>> + sdhci_writew(host, ctrl, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2);
>> +
>> + /* 1.8V regulator output should be stable within 5 ms */
>> + ctrl = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2);
>> + if (ctrl & SDHCI_CTRL_VDD_180)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + pr_warn("%s: 1.8V regulator output did not became stable\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(mmc));
>> +
>> + return -EAGAIN;
>> + case MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_120:
>> + if (!(host->flags & SDHCI_SIGNALING_120))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + return 0;
>> + default:
>> + /* No signal voltage switch required */
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> +}
>> +
>> static const struct sdhci_msm_variant_ops mci_var_ops = {
>> .msm_readl_relaxed = sdhci_msm_mci_variant_readl_relaxed,
>> .msm_writel_relaxed = sdhci_msm_mci_variant_writel_relaxed,
>> @@ -1644,6 +1835,7 @@ static void sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host)
>> .set_uhs_signaling = sdhci_msm_set_uhs_signaling,
>> .write_w = sdhci_msm_writew,
>> .write_b = sdhci_msm_writeb,
>> + .set_power = sdhci_msm_set_power,
>> };
>>
>> static const struct sdhci_pltfm_data sdhci_msm_pdata = {
>> @@ -1672,6 +1864,8 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> if (IS_ERR(host))
>> return PTR_ERR(host);
>>
>> + host->mmc_host_ops.start_signal_voltage_switch =
>> + sdhci_msm_start_signal_voltage_switch;
> Perhaps put this where the other mmc_host_ops assignment is.
sure. Will move it.
>> host->sdma_boundary = 0;
>> pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
>> msm_host = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host);
>> @@ -1819,6 +2013,10 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> msm_offset->core_vendor_spec_capabilities0);
>> }
>>
>> + ret = sdhci_msm_register_vreg(msm_host);
>> + if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> Why not just:
>
> if (ret)
>
>> + goto clk_disable;
>> +
>> /*
>> * Power on reset state may trigger power irq if previous status of
>> * PWRCTL was either BUS_ON or IO_HIGH_V. So before enabling pwr irq
>> @@ -1867,7 +2065,7 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> ret = sdhci_add_host(host);
>> if (ret)
>> goto pm_runtime_disable;
>> - sdhci_msm_set_regulator_caps(msm_host);
>> + msm_host->pltfm_init_done = true;
>>
>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pdev->dev);
>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
>>
Thanks for all the comments. Will incorporate all the commented changes.
> --
> 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