| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:28:44 +0530
From: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@...eaurora.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...gle.com>,
Shaik Sajida Bhanu <sbhanu@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Asutosh Das <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>,
Ram Prakash Gupta <rampraka@...eaurora.org>,
Sayali Lokhande <sayalil@...eaurora.org>,
sartgarg@...eaurora.org, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>,
Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>, cang@...eaurora.org,
pragalla@...eaurora.org, nitirawa@...eaurora.org,
Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add nodes for eMMC and SD
card
On 3/23/2021 9:41 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:18 AM Shaik Sajida Bhanu
> <sbhanu@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> Add nodes for eMMC and SD card on sc7280.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shaik Sajida Bhanu <sbhanu@...eaurora.org>
>>
>> ---
>> This change is depends on the below patch series:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series=488871
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series=489530
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series=488429
>>
>> Changes since V1:
>> - Moved SDHC nodes as suggested by Bjorn Andersson.
>> - Dropped "pinconf-" prefix as suggested by Bjorn Andersson.
>> - Removed extra newlines as suggested by Konrad Dybcio.
>> - Changed sd-cd pin to bias-pull-up in sdc2_off as suggested by
>> Veerabhadrarao Badiganti.
>> - Added bandwidth votes for eMMC and SD card.
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts | 25 ++++
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi | 213 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 238 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts
>> index 54d2cb3..4105263 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts
>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>> /dts-v1/;
>>
>> #include "sc7280.dtsi"
>> +#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
>>
>> / {
>> model = "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. sc7280 IDP platform";
>> @@ -242,6 +243,30 @@
>> status = "okay";
>> };
>>
>> +&sdhc_1 {
>> + status = "okay";
> When I apply your patch I find that your sort order is wrong. "s"
> comes before "u" and after "q" in the alphabet so "sdhc_1" and
> "sdhc_2" should sort _after "qupv3_id_0" and before "uart5"
>
>
>> + pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
>> + pinctrl-0 = <&sdc1_on>;
>> + pinctrl-1 = <&sdc1_off>;
>> +
>> + vmmc-supply = <&vreg_l7b_2p9>;
>> + vqmmc-supply = <&vreg_l19b_1p8>;
>> +};
>> +
>> +&sdhc_2 {
>> + status = "okay";
>> +
>> + pinctrl-names = "default","sleep";
>> + pinctrl-0 = <&sdc2_on>;
>> + pinctrl-1 = <&sdc2_off>;
>> +
>> + vmmc-supply = <&vreg_l9c_2p9>;
>> + vqmmc-supply = <&vreg_l6c_2p9>;
>> +
>> + cd-gpios = <&tlmm 91 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> Where is the pinctrl for the card detect? Oh, I see it's in
> "sdc2_on". Probably would be good to break it out since this is
> board-specific. See below.
>
>
>> +};
>> +
>> /* PINCTRL - additions to nodes defined in sc7280.dtsi */
>>
>> &qup_uart5_default {
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>> index 8f6b569..69eb064 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>> @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@
>>
>> chosen { };
>>
>> + aliases {
>> + mmc1 = &sdhc_1;
>> + mmc2 = &sdhc_2;
>> + };
>> +
>> clocks {
>> xo_board: xo-board {
>> compatible = "fixed-clock";
>> @@ -305,6 +310,64 @@
>> #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>> };
>>
>> + sdhc_1: sdhci@...000 {
>> + compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v5";
> Please make the compatible:
> compatible = "qcom,sc7280-sdhci", "qcom,sdhci-msm-v5";
>
> ...and add to the bindings. It should be a trivial bindings patch so
> not too much trouble.
>
> NOTE: even though the "qcom,sc7280-sdhci" should be in the bindings
> and here you _shouldn't_ be adding any code for it. Just let the
> fallback compatible string ("qcom,sdhci-msm-v5") do its magic. Adding
> the sc7280 specific version is more of a "just in case we need it
> later" type thing.
>
>
>> + reg = <0 0x7c4000 0 0x1000>,
>> + <0 0x7c5000 0 0x1000>;
>> + reg-names = "hc", "cqhci";
>> +
>> + iommus = <&apps_smmu 0xC0 0x0>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 652 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 656 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + interrupt-names = "hc_irq", "pwr_irq";
>> +
>> + clocks = <&gcc GCC_SDCC1_APPS_CLK>,
>> + <&gcc GCC_SDCC1_AHB_CLK>,
>> + <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>;
>> + clock-names = "core", "iface", "xo";
> I'm curious: why is the "xo" clock needed here but not for sc7180?
Actually its needed even for sc7180. We are making use of this clock in
msm_init_cm_dll()
The default PoR value is also same as calculated value for
HS200/HS400/SDR104 modes.
But just not to rely on default register values we need this entry.
>
>> + interconnects = <&aggre1_noc MASTER_SDCC_1 0 &mc_virt SLAVE_EBI1 0>,
>> + <&gem_noc MASTER_APPSS_PROC 0 &cnoc2 SLAVE_SDCC_1 0>;
>> + interconnect-names = "sdhc-ddr","cpu-sdhc";
>> + power-domains = <&rpmhpd SC7280_CX>;
>> + operating-points-v2 = <&sdhc1_opp_table>;
>> +
>> + bus-width = <8>;
>> + non-removable;
> This was actually a problem on sc7180 too, but you probably don't want
> "non-removable" in the SoC file. Board files really should be adding
> this. Though the SoC might be designed with the idea that this would
> be used for a non-removable eMMC card I don't know why it wouldn't be
> possible for someone to hook this up to an external slot and use a
> GPIO somewhere as a card detect.
>
>
>> + supports-cqe;
>> + no-sd;
>> + no-sdio;
> Does the port really not support SD / SDIO, or are you adding these
> two properties just because on your reference board it's not hooked up
> to SD/SDIO? What exactly makes it impossible to use SD/SDIO on this
> port?
>
By having this, we can optimize emmc device scan time.
Driver wont issue SDIO & SDcards specific commands while
scanning the device.Its little optimization.
I think board specific dt is right place.
>> + max-frequency = <192000000>;
> Why do you need to specify this?
>
>
>> + qcom,dll-config = <0x0007642c>;
>> + qcom,ddr-config = <0x80040868>;
> These magic hex values really have no place being in dts which should
> have things expressed at a higher level. ...but I guess that ship has
> sailed and this is in the bindings so I guess we're stuck with them,
> so I guess they're fine.
>
>
>> + mmc-ddr-1_8v;
>> + mmc-hs200-1_8v;
>> + mmc-hs400-1_8v;
>> + mmc-hs400-enhanced-strobe;
>> +
>> + status = "disabled";
>> +
>> + sdhc1_opp_table: sdhc1-opp-table {
>> + compatible = "operating-points-v2";
>> +
>> + opp-100000000 {
>> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <100000000>;
>> + required-opps = <&rpmhpd_opp_low_svs>;
>> + opp-peak-kBps = <1200000 76000>;
>> + opp-avg-kBps = <1200000 50000>;
> Why are the kBps numbers so vastly different than the ones on sc7180
> for the same OPP point. That implies:
>
> a) sc7180 is wrong.
>
> b) This patch is wrong.
>
> c) The numbers are essentially random and don't really matter.
>
> Can you identify which of a), b), or c) is correct, or propose an
> alternate explanation of the difference?
>
>
>> + };
>> +
>> + opp-384000000 {
>> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <384000000>;
>> + required-opps = <&rpmhpd_opp_nom>;
>> + opp-peak-kBps = <5400000 1600000>;
>> + opp-avg-kBps = <6000000 300000>;
> These opp numbers are also quite different than sc7180
>
>
>> + };
>> + };
>> + };
>> +
>> qupv3_id_0: geniqup@...000 {
>> compatible = "qcom,geni-se-qup";
>> reg = <0 0x009c0000 0 0x2000>;
>> @@ -328,6 +391,54 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
>> + sdhc_2: sdhci@...4000 {
>> + compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v5";
>> + reg = <0 0x08804000 0 0x1000>;
>> +
>> + iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x100 0x0>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 207 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 223 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + interrupt-names = "hc_irq", "pwr_irq";
>> +
>> + clocks = <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_APPS_CLK>,
>> + <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_AHB_CLK>,
>> + <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>;
>> + clock-names = "core", "iface", "xo";
>> + interconnects = <&aggre1_noc MASTER_SDCC_2 0 &mc_virt SLAVE_EBI1 0>,
>> + <&gem_noc MASTER_APPSS_PROC 0 &cnoc2 SLAVE_SDCC_2 0>;
>> + interconnect-names = "sdhc-ddr","cpu-sdhc";
>> + power-domains = <&rpmhpd SC7280_CX>;
>> + operating-points-v2 = <&sdhc2_opp_table>;
>> +
>> + bus-width = <4>;
>> +
>> + no-mmc;
>> + no-sdio;
> Similar question to above: why exactly would mmc not work? Are you
> saying that if someone hooked this up to a full sized SD card slot and
> placed an MMC card into the slot that it wouldn't work? Similar
> question about SDIO. If someone placed an external SDIO card into your
> slot, would it not work?
>
As mentioned above, its just to optimize SDcard scan time a little.
>> + max-frequency = <202000000>;
> Not needed?
>
>> +
>> + qcom,dll-config = <0x0007642c>;
>> +
>> + status = "disabled";
>> +
>> + sdhc2_opp_table: sdhc2-opp-table {
>> + compatible = "operating-points-v2";
>> +
>> + opp-100000000 {
>> + opp-hz =/bits/ 64 <100000000>;
>> + required-opps = <&rpmhpd_opp_low_svs>;
>> + opp-peak-kBps = <1200000 76000>;
>> + opp-avg-kBps = <1200000 50000>;
>> + };
>> + opp-202000000 {
> Blank line between the OPPs?
>
>> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <202000000>;
>> + required-opps = <&rpmhpd_opp_nom>;
>> + opp-peak-kBps = <3500000 1200000>;
>> + opp-avg-kBps = <5000000 100000>;
>> + };
> Similar questions about why the OPPs are so vastly different from sc7180.
>
>> + };
>> + };
>> +
>> pdc: interrupt-controller@...0000 {
>> compatible = "qcom,sc7280-pdc", "qcom,pdc";
>> reg = <0 0x0b220000 0 0x30000>;
>> @@ -374,6 +485,108 @@
>> pins = "gpio46", "gpio47";
>> function = "qup13";
>> };
>> +
>> + sdc1_on: sdc1-on {
>> + clk {
>> + pins = "sdc1_clk";
>> + bias-disable;
>> + drive-strength = <16>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + cmd {
>> + pins = "sdc1_cmd";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <10>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + data {
>> + pins = "sdc1_data";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <10>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + rclk {
>> + pins = "sdc1_rclk";
>> + bias-pull-down;
>> + };
> * generally "bias" doesn't belong in the SoC file but instead should
> be in the board file. Some boards might have external pulls (even if
> the internal ones would work fine, hardware designers do weird things)
> and thus might need to disable the internal ones (double pulls are not
> great).
>
> * generally drive-strength doesn't belong in the SoC file but should
> be in the board file. Different boards with different layouts might
> need different drive strengths, right?
>
> If you remove those two things, I guess there's not actually much left
> in the SoC dtsi file so I guess move these all to the board file? That
> seems to be what we ended up with in "qrb5165-rb5.dts" / "sm8250.dtsi"
> which is an example of a board using the new style of pinctrl for
> devicetree.
>
>
>> + };
>> +
>> + sdc1_off: sdc1-off {
>> + clk {
>> + pins = "sdc1_clk";
>> + bias-disable;
>> + drive-strength = <2>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + cmd {
>> + pins = "sdc1_cmd";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <2>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + data {
>> + pins = "sdc1_data";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <2>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + rclk {
>> + pins = "sdc1_rclk";
>> + bias-pull-down;
>> + };
>> + };
> No need for a sleep state for the rclk since it's the same as the
> active state, right? NOTE: one way to handle this would be to define
> one node per pingroup and thus do something like:
>
> pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
> pinctrl-0 = <&sdc1_clk>, <&sdc1_cmd>, <&sdc1_data>, <&sdc1_rclk>;
> pinctrl-1 = <&sdc1_clk_sleep>, <&sdc1_cmd_sleep>, <&sdc1_data_sleep>,
> <&sdc1_rclk>;
>
> I do wish we could avoid having to duplicate the "bias" in every board
> file. Hrm, I wonder if this could be made simpler by actually putting
> the "sleep" states in the sc7180.dtsi file (not the board file) and
> using "bias-bus-hold" to avoid it being board specific?
>
> Thus (assuming it works), the total summary would be:
>
> 1. Board dts file fully defines "sdc1_clk", "sdc1_cmd", "sdc1_data",
> "sdc1_rclk", specifying whatever bias and drive strength needed for
> the board.
>
> 2. SoC dtsi fully defines "sdc1_clk_sleep", "sdc1_cmd_sleep",
> "sdc1_data_sleep", "sdc1_rclk_sleep", specifying drive-strength of 2
> (for outputs) and "bias-bus-hold" which is OK for all board.
>
>
>> +
>> + sdc2_on: sdc2-on {
>> + clk {
>> + pins = "sdc2_clk";
>> + bias-disable;
>> + drive-strength = <16>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + cmd {
>> + pins = "sdc2_cmd";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <10>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + data {
>> + pins = "sdc2_data";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <10>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + sd-cd {
>> + pins = "gpio91";
> NOTE: even if we find some reason to keep some of the pinctrl in the
> SoC dtsi file, the card detect almost certainly needs to move _fully_
> to the board dts file. Different boards could use a different card
> detect pin.
>
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <2>;
> Drive strength isn't needed for input pins. Please remove.
>
>> + };
>> + };
>> +
>> + sdc2_off: sdc2-off {
>> + clk {
>> + pins = "sdc2_clk";
>> + bias-disable;
>> + drive-strength = <2>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + cmd {
>> + pins = "sdc2_cmd";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <2>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + data {
>> + pins = "sdc2_data";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <2>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + sd-cd {
>> + pins = "gpio91";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <2>;
>> + };
> There's definitely no need for a separate sleep state for the CD line.
>
>
> -Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists