[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dfebd55dc6df88916876388dcdad3aa4@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 16:48:22 +0800
From: cang@...eaurora.org
To: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
Cc: subhashj@...eaurora.org, asutoshd@...eaurora.org,
vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Vinayak Holikatti <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, venkatg@...eaurora.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] scsi: ufs: add 2 lane support
Hi Evan,
On 2018-10-04 02:34, Evan Green wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:19 AM Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> From: Venkat Gopalakrishnan <venkatg@...eaurora.org>
>>
>> Qcom ufs controller v3.1.0 supports 2 lanes, add support
>> to configure 2 lanes during phy initialization.
>
> I'm reviving this old chestnut, sorry I missed it initially. This
> description is a little terse, and I'm actually confused about it. The
> description makes it sounds like this patch is adding support for
> 2-lane UFS controllers, but the patch itself appears to only make the
> UFS controller tolerant of a missing lane (or more specifically, a
> missing lane clock). Can you describe a little more about what's going
> on here, and perhaps fix the description?
>
> I notice that the global clock controller has clocks for TX symbol 0,
> and RX symbol 1, but seems to be missing GCC_UFS_PHY_TX_SYMBOL_1_CLK.
> Was that an oversight, or is it really not there?
>
You are right. The name and commit message are not representing itself
correctly as most of the original commit has been upstreamed already.
I uploaded a new patch to address it.
As per Qcom's design Tx Lane1 clock derives from Tx Lane0. So only
one Tx Lane0 clock would make 2 Tx lanes work.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Venkat Gopalakrishnan <venkatg@...eaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@...eaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c | 20 +++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> index 2b38db2..51889ad 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> @@ -113,10 +113,10 @@ static void ufs_qcom_disable_lane_clks(struct
>> ufs_qcom_host *host)
>> if (!host->is_lane_clks_enabled)
>> return;
>>
>> - if (host->hba->lanes_per_direction > 1)
>> + if (host->tx_l1_sync_clk)
>> clk_disable_unprepare(host->tx_l1_sync_clk);
>> clk_disable_unprepare(host->tx_l0_sync_clk);
>> - if (host->hba->lanes_per_direction > 1)
>> + if (host->rx_l1_sync_clk)
>> clk_disable_unprepare(host->rx_l1_sync_clk);
>> clk_disable_unprepare(host->rx_l0_sync_clk);
>>
>> @@ -147,18 +147,15 @@ static int ufs_qcom_enable_lane_clks(struct
>> ufs_qcom_host *host)
>> if (err)
>> goto disable_tx_l0;
>>
>> - err = ufs_qcom_host_clk_enable(dev,
>> "tx_lane1_sync_clk",
>> - host->tx_l1_sync_clk);
>> - if (err)
>> - goto disable_rx_l1;
>> + /* The tx lane1 clk could be muxed, hence keep this
>> optional */
>
> I'm confused by this comment. What do you mean the clock could be
> muxed?
>
>> + if (host->tx_l1_sync_clk)
>> + ufs_qcom_host_clk_enable(dev,
>> "tx_lane1_sync_clk",
>> +
>> host->tx_l1_sync_clk);
>> }
>>
>> host->is_lane_clks_enabled = true;
>> goto out;
>>
>> -disable_rx_l1:
>> - if (host->hba->lanes_per_direction > 1)
>> - clk_disable_unprepare(host->rx_l1_sync_clk);
>> disable_tx_l0:
>> clk_disable_unprepare(host->tx_l0_sync_clk);
>> disable_rx_l0:
>> @@ -189,8 +186,9 @@ static int ufs_qcom_init_lane_clks(struct
>> ufs_qcom_host *host)
>> if (err)
>> goto out;
>>
>> - err = ufs_qcom_host_clk_get(dev, "tx_lane1_sync_clk",
>> - &host->tx_l1_sync_clk);
>> + /* The tx lane1 clk could be muxed, hence keep this
>> optional */
>> + ufs_qcom_host_clk_get(dev, "tx_lane1_sync_clk",
>> + &host->tx_l1_sync_clk);
>> }
>> out:
>> return err;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists