[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4zj_G304iaOB1X4pumdMw=SnzSkPJHfMrWcX6trzayoTbgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:55:18 +0800
From: Ben Chuang <benchuanggli@...il.com>
To: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
Ben Chuang <benchuanggli@...il.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Chuang <ben.chuang@...esyslogic.com.tw>,
greg.tu@...esyslogic.com.tw, Renius.Chen@...esyslogic.com.tw
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V3 12/21] mmc: sdhci: UHS-II support, add hooks for
additional operations
Takahiro,
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:57 PM AKASHI Takahiro
<takahiro.akashi@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Ben,
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 06:50:24PM +0800, Ben Chuang wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:38 PM AKASHI Takahiro
> > <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Adrian, Ben,
> > >
> > > Regarding _set_ios() function,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 05:08:32PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > > > On 10/07/20 2:10 pm, Ben Chuang wrote:
> > > > > From: Ben Chuang <ben.chuang@...esyslogic.com.tw>
> > > > >
> > > > > In this commit, UHS-II related operations will be called via a function
> > > > > pointer array, sdhci_uhs2_ops, in order to make UHS-II support as
> > > > > a kernel module.
> > > > > This array will be initialized only if CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2 is enabled
> > > > > and when the UHS-II module is loaded. Otherwise, all the functions
> > > > > stay void.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Chuang <ben.chuang@...esyslogic.com.tw>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > > > @@ -2261,6 +2324,7 @@ void sdhci_set_ios(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_ios *ios)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
> > > > > u8 ctrl;
> > > > > + u16 ctrl_2;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (ios->power_mode == MMC_POWER_UNDEFINED)
> > > > > return;
> > > > > @@ -2287,6 +2351,10 @@ void sdhci_set_ios(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_ios *ios)
> > > > > sdhci_enable_preset_value(host, false);
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!ios->clock || ios->clock != host->clock) {
> > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2) &&
> > > > > + ios->timing == MMC_TIMING_UHS2)
> > > > > + host->timing = ios->timing;
> > > > > +
> > > > > host->ops->set_clock(host, ios->clock);
> > > > > host->clock = ios->clock;
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -2308,6 +2376,18 @@ void sdhci_set_ios(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_ios *ios)
> > > > > else
> > > > > sdhci_set_power(host, ios->power_mode, ios->vdd);
> > > > >
> > > > > + /* 4.0 host support */
> > > > > + if (host->version >= SDHCI_SPEC_400) {
> > > > > + /* UHS2 Support */
> > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2) &&
> > > > > + host->mmc->flags & MMC_UHS2_SUPPORT &&
> > > > > + host->mmc->caps & MMC_CAP_UHS2) {
> > > > > + if (sdhci_uhs2_ops.do_set_ios)
> > > > > + sdhci_uhs2_ops.do_set_ios(host, ios);
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Please look at using existing callbacks instead, maybe creating uhs2_set_ios(), uhs2_set_clock(), uhs2_set_power()
> > >
> > > I think that we will create uhs2_set_ios() (and uhs2_set_power()
> > > as we discussed on patch#15/21), but not uhs_set_clock().
> > >
> > > Since we have a hook only in struct mmc_host_ops, but not in struct
> > > sdhci_ops, all the drivers who want to support UHS-II need to
> > > set host->mmc_host_ops->set_ios to sdhci_uhs2_set_ios explicitly
> > > in their own init (or probe) function.
> > > (Again, sdhci_uhs2_set_ios() seems to be generic though.)
> > >
> > > Is this okay for you?
> > > -> Adrian
> > >
> > > During refactoring the code, I found that sdhci_set_power() is called
> > > twice in sdhci_set_ios():
> > > sdhci_set_ios(host, power_mode, vdd1, -1); in sdhci_set_ios(), and
> > > sdhci_set_ios(host, power_mode, vdd1, vdd2) in ush2_do_set_ios()
> > >
> > > Can you please confirm that those are redundant?
> >
> > Yes, uhs2 set power is independent with uhs1.
> > But set uhs2 power process should meet uhs2 spec.
>
> Can you elaborate a bit more about the last sentence, please?
>
> What I meant above is that
> sdhci_set_ios(host, power_mode, vdd1, vdd2) in ush2_do_set_ios()
>
> this code will 'set_power' both vdd and vdd2 anyway and so
> sdhci_set_ios(host, power_mode, vdd1, -1); in sdhci_set_ios(), and
> is just redundant.
>
Yes, for uhs-2 flow, sdhci_set_ios(host, power_mode, vdd1, -1) is redundant.
>
> > > -> Ben
> > >
> > > I also wonder why we need spin locks in uhs2_do_set_ios() while
> > > not in sdhci_set_ios().
> >
> > You can check if spin locks in uhs2_do_set_ios() is necessary.
>
> I'm asking you.
>
> While calling set_ios() doesn't require spin locks, are you aware of
> any cases where we need spin locks in calling set_ios() for uhs-2?
> (I mean that callers/contexts are the same either for uhs or uhs-2.)
I agree that it can be removed. I just didn't modify intel's original codes.
>
> -Takahiro Akashi
>
> > If set/clear irq can be execute safely without spin locks, you can
> > remove spin locks.
> >
> > >
> > > -> Ben
> > >
> > > -Takahiro Akashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists