linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] phy: qcom-qmp: Add MSM8996 UFS QMP support

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191219134845.GU2536@vkoul-mobl>
Date:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 19:18:45 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] phy: qcom-qmp: Add MSM8996 UFS QMP support

On 18-12-19, 23:06, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 18 Dec 20:20 PST 2019, Vinod Koul wrote:
> 
> > On 07-12-19, 12:21, Bjorn Andersson wrote:

> > >  static const unsigned int pciephy_regs_layout[] = {
> > >  	[QPHY_COM_SW_RESET]		= 0x400,
> > >  	[QPHY_COM_POWER_DOWN_CONTROL]	= 0x404,
> > > @@ -330,6 +335,75 @@ static const struct qmp_phy_init_tbl msm8998_pcie_pcs_tbl[] = {
> > >  	QMP_PHY_INIT_CFG(QPHY_V3_PCS_SIGDET_CNTRL, 0x03),
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > +static const struct qmp_phy_init_tbl msm8996_ufs_serdes_tbl[] = {
> > > +	QMP_PHY_INIT_CFG(QPHY_POWER_DOWN_CONTROL, 0x01),
> > 
> > Can you check this after adding the reset for ufs, I suspect you might
> > run into same issue as I am seeing on 8150, power down here does not
> > seem correct.
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure why we need to tickle POWER_DOWN here, but it's documented
> as such, done in the old driver and without it the PHY does not come up.

I checked and you *may* leave this as is. The register write preceding this
is same, so we are writing twice, but does not seem have any side effect
so we can keep it here :)

-- 
~Vinod