| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9a4708c8-cc43-a690-7ef7-da351eb1f967@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 20:06:04 +0530
From: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@...eaurora.org>
To: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
Cc: adrian.hunter@...el.com, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
robh+dt@...nel.org, Doug Anderson <dianders@...gle.com>,
asutoshd@...eaurora.org, riteshh@...eaurora.org,
stummala@...eaurora.org, sayali <sayalil@...eaurora.org>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
vviswana@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] mmc: sdhci: Allow platform controlled voltage
switching
On 11/12/2018 10:49 PM, Veerabhadrarao Badiganti wrote:
>
> On 10/17/2018 3:39 AM, Evan Green wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:22 AM Veerabhadrarao Badiganti
>> <vbadigan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>> From: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@...eaurora.org>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> During setup/cleanup of host, check whether regulator enable/disable
>>> was already done by platform driver.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@...eaurora.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@...eaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h | 1 +
>>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> index 99bdae5..ea7ce1d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> @@ -3616,6 +3616,7 @@ int sdhci_setup_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
>>> unsigned int override_timeout_clk;
>>> u32 max_clk;
>>> int ret;
>>> + bool enable_vqmmc = false;
>>>
>>> WARN_ON(host == NULL);
>>> if (host == NULL)
>>> @@ -3629,9 +3630,12 @@ 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 (ret)
>>> - return ret;
>>> + if (!mmc->supply.vqmmc) {
>>> + ret = mmc_regulator_get_supply(mmc);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> + enable_vqmmc = true;
>>> + }
>> Did you not like my suggestion in the previous patch of changing
>> mmc_regulator_get_supply to only get supplies that were not set
>> previously? What you have here is almost the same, except you've got
>> this weird coupling where if vqmmc is already present, you implicitly
>> skip looking at vmmc entirely (since mmc_regulator_get_supply does
>> more than just get vqmmc).
>
> sure. Will update mmc_regulator_get_supply() as you suggested.
>
>>> DBG("Version: 0x%08x | Present: 0x%08x\n",
>>> sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_VERSION),
>>> @@ -3880,7 +3884,15 @@ int sdhci_setup_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
>>> mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_NEEDS_POLL;
>>>
>>> if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) {
>>> - ret = regulator_enable(mmc->supply.vqmmc);
>>> + if (enable_vqmmc) {
>>> + ret = regulator_enable(mmc->supply.vqmmc);
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + pr_warn("%s: Failed to enable vqmmc
>>> regulator: %d\n",
>>> + mmc_hostname(mmc), ret);
>>> + mmc->supply.vqmmc = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>> + }
>>> + host->vqmmc_enabled = !ret;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> /* If vqmmc provides no 1.8V signalling, then
>>> there's no UHS */
>>> if
>>> (!regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 1700000,
>>> @@ -3893,12 +3905,6 @@ int sdhci_setup_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
>>> if
>>> (!regulator_is_supported_voltage(mmc->supply.vqmmc, 2700000,
>>> 3600000))
>>> host->flags &= ~SDHCI_SIGNALING_330;
>>> -
>>> - if (ret) {
>>> - pr_warn("%s: Failed to enable vqmmc
>>> regulator: %d\n",
>>> - mmc_hostname(mmc), ret);
>>> - mmc->supply.vqmmc = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>> - }
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (host->quirks2 & SDHCI_QUIRK2_NO_1_8_V) {
>>> @@ -4136,7 +4142,7 @@ int sdhci_setup_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> unreg:
>>> - if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc))
>>> + if (host->vqmmc_enabled)
>>> regulator_disable(mmc->supply.vqmmc);
>>> undma:
>>> if (host->align_buffer)
>>> @@ -4154,7 +4160,7 @@ void sdhci_cleanup_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
>>> {
>>> struct mmc_host *mmc = host->mmc;
>>>
>>> - if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc))
>>> + if (host->vqmmc_enabled)
>>> regulator_disable(mmc->supply.vqmmc);
>>>
>>> if (host->align_buffer)
>>> @@ -4287,7 +4293,7 @@ void sdhci_remove_host(struct sdhci_host
>>> *host, int dead)
>>>
>>> tasklet_kill(&host->finish_tasklet);
>>>
>>> - if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc))
>>> + if (host->vqmmc_enabled)
>>> regulator_disable(mmc->supply.vqmmc);
>>>
>>> if (host->align_buffer)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>>> index b001cf4..3c28152 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>>> @@ -524,6 +524,7 @@ struct sdhci_host {
>>> bool pending_reset; /* Cmd/data reset is pending */
>>> bool irq_wake_enabled; /* IRQ wakeup is enabled */
>>> bool v4_mode; /* Host Version 4 Enable */
>>> + bool vqmmc_enabled; /* Vqmmc is enabled */
>> I still don't love this, since it doesn't mean what it says. Everyone
>> else that has a vqmmc_enabled member uses it to actually mean "vqmmc
>> is enabled", but this doesn't mean that. For example, you don't clear
>> this when you disable the regulator in patch 3, so this would be set
>> even if the regulator is disabled, and you don't set it when sdhci
>> enables the regulator, so the regulator is on when this flag is not
>> set.
>>
Hi Evan
This flag is meant to say "disable vqmmc *only* if it is enabled by host
driver (sdhci_host)".
If host driver doesn't enable vqmmc (enabled by platfrm driver) or if it
fails to enable it, then don't call disable vqmmc.
Agree with you, the present name is not conveying its purpose.
It must be something like "vqmmc_enabled_by_host".
Please let me know if you have any suggestions on this name.
>> At the very least, I think a rename is in order. I'm struggling with
>> the rename, since
>> "vqmmc_pltfrm_enable_but_feel_free_to_call_set_voltage_anywhere" is
>> too long. I guess vqmmc_pltfrm_enabled is the best I've got for now.
>
> Sure. Will rename it.
>
>>> struct mmc_request *mrqs_done[SDHCI_MAX_MRQS]; /* Requests
>>> done */
>>> struct mmc_command *cmd; /* Current command */
>>> --
>>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation
>>> Center, Inc.
>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
>>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
>>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists