[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cc915cc2-722b-5cae-6c8b-b0d50d90c56d@free.fr>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:05:28 +0100
From: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: SCSI <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
Pedro Sousa <pedrom.sousa@...opsys.com>,
Joao Pinto <jpinto@...opsys.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>,
Stanislav Nijnikov <stanislav.nijnikov@....com>,
Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@....com>,
Ohad Sharabi <ohad.sharabi@....com>,
Venkat Gopalakrishnan <venkatg@...eaurora.org>,
Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@...eaurora.org>,
Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>,
Raviv Shvili <rshvili@...eaurora.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Kyuho Choi <kyuho.choi@...com>,
Martin Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] scsi: ufs: Do not disable vccq in UFSHC driver
On 11/02/2019 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:32:15PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, this optimization breaks UFS on systems where vccq
>> powers not only the Flash chip, but the host controller as well,
>> such as APQ8098 MEDIABOX or MTP8998.
>>
>> In my opinion, the rationale for the original patch is questionable.
>> If neither the UFSHC, nor the Flash chip, require any load from vccq,
>> then that power rail should simply not be specified at all in the DT.
>
> If the supply is physically connected it should be valid to represent
> this in DT regardless of how or if the supply gets used at runtime.
> However it does sound like this support needs to be better thought
> through to make sure we have represented the supplies to the flash chip
> and the controller separately - it seems like right now there's no
> tracking of the supplies needed for the controller and the assumption is
> that only the flash chip needs managing which is breaking things.
As far as I'm aware, the conflation of host controller with their respective
storage medium occurs across several techs: UFS, NAND, SDHC, EMMC.
There might be room for improvement, but I don't think these considerations
should hold up this series, which fixes something that is broken *today*.
UFS reviewers (Alim, Avri, Pedro), can I get at least one Acked-by to remove
this small power optimization that breaks UFS on my system?
Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists