Message-ID: <e1738473c26de45b5c9c7c4d5963f32c@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:42:28 +0530
From:   skakit@...eaurora.org
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akashast@...eaurora.org,
        rojay@...eaurora.org, msavaliy@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: Add sleep pin ctrl for
 BT uart

On 2020-08-21 22:52, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 07:21:06PM +0530, satya priya wrote:
>> Add sleep pin ctrl for BT uart, and also change the bias
>> configuration to match Bluetooth module.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: satya priya <skakit@...eaurora.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Akash Asthana <akashast@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>> Changes in V2:
>>  - This patch adds sleep state for BT UART. Newly added in V2.
>> 
>> Changes in V3:
>>  - Remove "output-high" for TX from both sleep and default states
>>    as it is not required. Configure pull-up for TX in sleep state.
>> 
>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts | 54 
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts 
>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts
>> index d8b5507..806f626 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts
>> @@ -473,20 +473,20 @@
>> 
>>  &qup_uart3_default {
>>  	pinconf-cts {
>> -		/*
>> -		 * Configure a pull-down on 38 (CTS) to match the pull of
>> -		 * the Bluetooth module.
>> -		 */
>> +		/* Configure no pull on 38 (CTS) to match Bluetooth module */
>>  		pins = "gpio38";
>> -		bias-pull-down;
>> -		output-high;
>> +		bias-disable;
> 
> I think it should be ok in functional terms, but I don't like the 
> rationale
> and also doubt the change is really needed.
> 
> If the pull is removed to match the Bluetooth module, then that sounds 
> as
> if the signal was floating on the the BT side, which I think is not the 
> case.
> Yes, according to the datasheet there is no pull when the BT controller 
> is
> active, but then it drives the signal actively to either high or low. 
> There
> seems to be no merit in 'matching' the Bluetooth side in this case, if 
> the
> signal was really floating on the BT side we would definitely not want 
> this.
> 
> In a reply to v2 you said:
> 
>> Recently on cherokee we worked with BT team and came to an agreement 
>> to
>> keep no-pull from our side in order to not conflict with their pull in
>> any state.
> 
> What are these conflicting pull states?
> 
> The WCN3998 datasheet has a pull-down on RTS (WCN3998 side) in reset 
> and
> boot mode, and no pull in active mode. In reset and boot mode the host
> config with a pull down would match, and no pull in active mode doesn't
> conflict with the pull-down on the host UART. My understanding is that
> the pinconf pulls are weak pulls, so as soon as the BT chip drives its
> RTS the pull on the host side shouldn't matter.
> 

yes, I agree with you, the pinconf pulls are weak. As this is driven by 
BT SoC (pull on HOST side shouldn't matter), we are not mentioning any 
bias configuration from our side and simply putting it as no-pull, just 
to not conflict in any case. It seems that the rationale mentioned is a 
bit confusing i will change it to clearly specify why we are configuring 
no-pull.

> Is this change actually related with wakeup support? I have the 
> impression
> that multiple things are conflated in this patch. If some of the 
> changes
> are just fixing/improving other things they should be in a separate 
> patch,
> which could be part of this series, otherwise it's really hard to
> distinguish between the pieces that are actually relevant for wakeup 
> and
> the rest.
> 
> Independently of whether the changes are done in a single or multiple
> patches, the commit log should include details on why the changes are
> necessary, especially when there are not explantatory comments in the
> DT/code itself (e.g. the removal of 'output-high', which seems correct
> to me, but no reason is given why it is done).
> 

This change is not related to wakeup support, I will make it a separate 
patch, will also mention the details in commit text.

>>  	};
>> 
>>  	pinconf-rts {
>> -		/* We'll drive 39 (RTS), so no pull */
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Configure pull-down on 39 (RTS). This is needed to avoid a
>> +		 * floating pin which could mislead Bluetooth controller
>> +		 * with UART RFR state (READY/NOT_READY).
>> +		 */
>>  		pins = "gpio39";
>>  		drive-strength = <2>;
>> -		bias-disable;
>> +		bias-pull-down;
>>  	};
> 
> [copy of my comment on v2]
> 
> I'm a bit at a loss here, about two things:
> 
> RTS is an output pin controlled by the UART. IIUC if the UART port is 
> active
> and hardware flow control is enabled the RTS signal is either driven to 
> high
> or low, but not floating.

Yes, RTS is either driven high or low. HW flow control is always enabled 
and only turned off when RX FIFO is full. Whereas SW flow control is 
controlled by upper layers(serial core), also it can be enabled/disabled 
from host by calling set_mctrl.

> 
> Now lets assume I'm wrong with the above and RTS can be floating. We 
> only want
> the BT SoC to send data when the host UART is ready to receive them, 
> right?
> RTS is an active low signal, hence by configuring it as a pull-down the 
> BT
> SoC can send data regardless of whether the host UART actually asserts 
> RTS,
> so the host UART may not be ready to receive it. I would argue that if 
> there
> is really such a thing as a floating RTS signal then it should have a 
> pull-up,
> to prevent the BT SoC from sending data at any time.
> 
> I'm not an expert in UART communication and pinconf, so it could be 
> that I
> got something wrong, but as of now it seems to me that no pull is the 
> correct
> config for RTS.
> 
>> 
>>  	pinconf-tx {
>> @@ -494,7 +494,43 @@
>>  		pins = "gpio40";
>>  		drive-strength = <2>;
>>  		bias-disable;
>> -		output-high;
>> +	};
>> +
>> +	pinconf-rx {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Configure a pull-up on 41 (RX). This is needed to avoid
>> +		 * garbage data when the TX pin of the Bluetooth module is
>> +		 * in tri-state (module powered off or not driving the
>> +		 * signal yet).
>> +		 */
>> +		pins = "gpio41";
>> +		bias-pull-up;
>> +	};
>> +};
>> +
>> +&qup_uart3_sleep {
>> +	pinconf-cts {
>> +		/* Configure no-pull on 38 (CTS) to match Bluetooth module */
>> +		pins = "gpio38";
>> +		bias-disable;
>> +	};
>> +
>> +	pinconf-rts {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Configure pull-down on 39 (RTS). This is needed to avoid a
>> +		 * floating pin which could mislead Bluetooth controller
>> +		 * with UART RFR state (READY/NOT_READY).
>> +		 */
>> +		pins = "gpio39";
>> +		drive-strength = <2>;
>> +		bias-pull-down;
>> +	};
> 
> I don't know all the details, but I have the impression that this is 
> the
> relevant pull change for wakeup. From the title of the series I derive
> that the UART RX pin is used for signalling wakeup. A pull-down on RTS
> indicates the BT controller that it can always send data to wake up the
> host.
> 
> I think RTS in default mode should remain with no-pull (the UART is 
> driving
> the signal), and then change it to pull-down in sleep mode.
> 
> 

As I understand from your previous comment, pinconf pulls are weak and 
cannot override the pull of controller. Although pull down is 
configured, data will be received only if host controller is ready to 
accept it. So, we want to put RTS in pull-down state(known state) 
instead of leaving it in ambiguous state i.e, no-pull(high/low).

>> +
>> +	pinconf-tx {
>> +		/* Configure pull-up on 40 (TX) when it isn't actively driven */
> 
> nit: just say '... on TX ...', the GPIO number isn't really interesting 
> and can
> easily be determined by looking at 'pins' if needed . Applicable to all 
> comments
> involving pins.
> 

Okay.

>> +		pins = "gpio40";
>> +		drive-strength = <2>;
>> +		bias-pull-up;
> 
> This makes sense to me.

Thanks,
Satya Priya

Powered by blists - more mailing lists