| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220509031845.GI4640@hu-pkondeti-hyd.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 08:48:45 +0530
From: Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>
To: Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
CC: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
"Doug Anderson" <dianders@...omium.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Wesley Cheng <wcheng@...eaurora.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>, <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>,
<quic_ppratap@...cinc.com>, <quic_vpulyala@...cinc.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 2/3] phy: qcom-snps: Add support for overriding phy tuning
parameters
Hi Krishna,
On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 05:42:26PM +0530, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
> Add support for overriding electrical signal tuning parameters for
> SNPS HS Phy.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
> ---
> drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-snps-femto-v2.c | 252 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 250 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-snps-femto-v2.c b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-snps-femto-v2.c
> index 5d20378..bed2c90 100644
> --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-snps-femto-v2.c
> +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-snps-femto-v2.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,12 @@
> #define USB2_SUSPEND_N BIT(2)
> #define USB2_SUSPEND_N_SEL BIT(3)
>
> +#define USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X0 (0x6c)
> +#define USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X1 (0x70)
> +#define USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X2 (0x74)
> +#define USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X3 (0x78)
> +#define PARAM_OVRD_MASK 0xFF
> +
> #define USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_CFG0 (0x94)
> #define UTMI_PHY_DATAPATH_CTRL_OVERRIDE_EN BIT(0)
> #define UTMI_PHY_CMN_CTRL_OVERRIDE_EN BIT(1)
> @@ -60,6 +66,16 @@
> #define REFCLK_SEL_MASK GENMASK(1, 0)
> #define REFCLK_SEL_DEFAULT (0x2 << 0)
>
> +#define HS_DISCONNECT_MASK GENMASK(2, 0)
> +#define SQUELCH_DETECTOR_MASK GENMASK(7, 5)
> +#define HS_AMPLITUDE_MASK GENMASK(3, 0)
> +#define PREEMPHASIS_DURATION_MASK BIT(5)
> +#define PREEMPHASIS_AMPLITUDE_MASK GENMASK(7, 6)
> +#define HS_RISE_FALL_MASK GENMASK(1, 0)
> +#define HS_CROSSOVER_VOLTAGE_MASK GENMASK(3, 2)
> +#define HS_OUTPUT_IMPEDANCE_MASK GENMASK(5, 4)
> +#define LS_FS_OUTPUT_IMPEDANCE_MASK GENMASK(3, 0)
> +
LGTM. All these definitions are matching with the databook.
> static const char * const qcom_snps_hsphy_vreg_names[] = {
> "vdda-pll", "vdda33", "vdda18",
> };
> @@ -173,10 +189,195 @@ static int qcom_snps_hsphy_set_mode(struct phy *phy, enum phy_mode mode,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +struct override_param {
> + s32 value;
> + u8 reg;
> +};
> +
> +#define OVERRIDE_PARAM(bps, val)\
> +{ \
> + .value = bps, \
> + .reg = val, \
> +}
> +
> +struct override_param_map {
> + struct override_param *param_table;
> + u8 table_size;
> + u8 reg_offset;
> + u8 param_mask;
> +};
> +
> +#define OVERRIDE_PARAM_MAP(table, numElements, offset, mask) \
No camelcase please.
> +{ \
> + .param_table = table, \
> + .table_size = numElements, \
> + .reg_offset = offset, \
> + .param_mask = mask, \
> +}
> +
> +static const char *phy_seq_props[] =
> +{
> + "qcom,hs-rise-fall-time-bps",
> + "qcom,squelch-detector-bps",
> + "qcom,preemphasis-duration",
> + "qcom,preemphasis-amplitude",
What are the units for pre-emphasis duration and amplitude? Can you add the
units as suffix?
> + "qcom,hs-disconnect-bps",
> + "qcom,hs-amplitude-bps",
> + "qcom,hs-crossover-voltage",
> + "qcom,hs-output-impedance",
What are the units for these above two parameters?
> + "qcom,ls-fs-output-impedance-bps",
> +};
> +
> +static struct override_param hs_rise_fall_time_sc7280[] = {
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-4100, 3),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(0, 2),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(2810, 1),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(5430, 0),
> +};
> +
> +static struct override_param squelch_det_threshold_sc7280[] = {
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-2090, 7),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-1560, 6),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-1030, 5),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-530, 4),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(0, 3),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(530, 2),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(1060, 1),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(1590, 0),
> +};
> +
> +static struct override_param hs_disconnect_sc7280[] = {
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-272, 0),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(0, 1),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(317, 2),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(630, 3),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(973, 4),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(1332, 5),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(1743, 6),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(2156, 7),
> +};
> +
> +static struct override_param hs_amplitude_sc7280[] = {
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-660, 0),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-440, 1),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-220, 2),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(0, 3),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(230, 4),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(440, 5),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(650, 6),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(890, 7),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(1110, 8),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(1330, 9),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(1560, 10),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(1780, 11),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(2000, 12),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(2220, 13),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(2430, 14),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(2670, 15),
> +};
> +
> +static struct override_param preemphasis_duration_sc7280[] = {
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(100, 1),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(200, 0),
> +};
> +
> +static struct override_param preemphasis_amplitude_sc7280[] = {
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(100, 1),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(200, 2),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(300, 3),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(400, 0),
> +};
> +
> +static struct override_param hs_crossover_voltage_sc7280[] = {
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-31, 1),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(28, 2),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(0, 3),
> +};
> +
> +static struct override_param hs_output_impedance_sc7280[] = {
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-2300, 3),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(0, 2),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(2600, 1),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(6100, 0),
> +};
> +
> +static struct override_param ls_fs_output_impedance_sc7280[] = {
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-1053, 15),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(-557, 7),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(0, 3),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(612, 1),
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM(1310, 0),
> +};
> +
LGTM. I have cross checked with the data book.
> +struct override_param_map sc7280_idp[] = {
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM_MAP(
> + hs_rise_fall_time_sc7280,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(hs_rise_fall_time_sc7280),
> + USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X2,
> + HS_RISE_FALL_MASK),
> +
The bitmask definitions like HS_DISCONNECT_MASK are defined as they appear
in the databook. However, this struct is defined out of order. Can you
defined X0, X1, X2 and X3 registers in an order. Easier to check/compare
against data book.
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM_MAP(
> + squelch_det_threshold_sc7280,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(squelch_det_threshold_sc7280),
> + USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X0,
> + SQUELCH_DETECTOR_MASK),
> +
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM_MAP(
> + preemphasis_duration_sc7280,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(preemphasis_duration_sc7280),
> + USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X1,
> + PREEMPHASIS_DURATION_MASK),
> +
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM_MAP(
> + preemphasis_amplitude_sc7280,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(preemphasis_amplitude_sc7280),
> + USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X1,
> + PREEMPHASIS_AMPLITUDE_MASK),
> +
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM_MAP(
> + hs_disconnect_sc7280,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(hs_disconnect_sc7280),
> + USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X0,
> + HS_DISCONNECT_MASK),
> +
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM_MAP(
> + hs_amplitude_sc7280,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(hs_amplitude_sc7280),
> + USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X1,
> + HS_AMPLITUDE_MASK),
> +
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM_MAP(
> + hs_crossover_voltage_sc7280,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(hs_crossover_voltage_sc7280),
> + USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X2,
> + HS_CROSSOVER_VOLTAGE_MASK),
> +
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM_MAP(
> + hs_output_impedance_sc7280,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(hs_output_impedance_sc7280),
> + USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X2,
> + HS_OUTPUT_IMPEDANCE_MASK),
> +
> + OVERRIDE_PARAM_MAP(
> + ls_fs_output_impedance_sc7280,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(ls_fs_output_impedance_sc7280),
> + USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_OVERRIDE_X3,
> + LS_FS_OUTPUT_IMPEDANCE_MASK),
> +};
> +
> +struct phy_override_seq {
> + bool need_update;
> + u8 offset;
> + u8 value;
> + u8 mask;
> +};
> +
> +struct phy_override_seq update_seq_cfg[ARRAY_SIZE(phy_seq_props)];
This needs to be wrapped up in qcom_snps_hsphy structure so that we can
support override sequence per phy instance. The electrical complaince tuning
is heavily influenced by the board design and where the ports are located etc.
So it is possible that two instances of the phy can use different tunning
parameters.
> +
> static int qcom_snps_hsphy_init(struct phy *phy)
> {
> struct qcom_snps_hsphy *hsphy = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> - int ret;
> + int ret, i;
>
> dev_vdbg(&phy->dev, "%s(): Initializing SNPS HS phy\n", __func__);
>
> @@ -223,6 +424,12 @@ static int qcom_snps_hsphy_init(struct phy *phy)
> qcom_snps_hsphy_write_mask(hsphy->base, USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_CTRL1,
> VBUSVLDEXT0, VBUSVLDEXT0);
>
> + for(i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(update_seq_cfg); i++) {
> + if (update_seq_cfg[i].need_update)
> + qcom_snps_hsphy_write_mask(hsphy->base, update_seq_cfg[i].offset,
> + update_seq_cfg[i].mask, update_seq_cfg[i].value);
> + }
> +
> qcom_snps_hsphy_write_mask(hsphy->base,
> USB2_PHY_USB_PHY_HS_PHY_CTRL_COMMON2,
> VREGBYPASS, VREGBYPASS);
> @@ -280,7 +487,10 @@ static const struct phy_ops qcom_snps_hsphy_gen_ops = {
> static const struct of_device_id qcom_snps_hsphy_of_match_table[] = {
> { .compatible = "qcom,sm8150-usb-hs-phy", },
> { .compatible = "qcom,usb-snps-hs-5nm-phy", },
> - { .compatible = "qcom,usb-snps-hs-7nm-phy", },
> + {
> + .compatible = "qcom,usb-snps-hs-7nm-phy",
> + .data = &sc7280_idp
> + },
can you check the indentation please?
> { .compatible = "qcom,usb-snps-femto-v2-phy", },
> { }
> };
> @@ -291,6 +501,43 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops qcom_snps_hsphy_pm_ops = {
> qcom_snps_hsphy_runtime_resume, NULL)
> };
>
> +static void hsphy_override_param_update_val(const struct override_param_map map,
> + s32 dt_val, struct phy_override_seq *seq_entry)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + /*
> + * We prepare the param table for each param in increasing order
> + * of dt values. So we need to iterate over the list once to get
> + * the required register value.
> + */
> + for (i = 0 ; i < map.table_size-1; i++) {
> + if (map.param_table[i].value >= dt_val)
> + break;
> + }
The comment is confusing. param_table[] already has values in the increasing
order. we have to find *closet* match here. To keep it simple, we select the
entry that has equal or the next highest (round up) value. clarify the
comment.
> +
> + seq_entry->need_update = true;
> + seq_entry->offset = map.reg_offset;
> + seq_entry->mask = map.param_mask;
> + seq_entry->value = map.param_table[i].reg << __ffs(map.param_mask);
> +}
> +
> +static void phy_read_param_override_seq(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct device_node *node = dev->of_node;
> + s32 val;
> + int ret, i;
> + struct qcom_snps_hsphy *hsphy;
> + struct override_param_map *cfg = (struct override_param_map* ) of_device_get_match_data(dev);
nit pick. No explicit type case is needed here. of_device_get_match_data()
returns a void pointer. so it can be written as
struct override_param_map *cfg = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
> + hsphy = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(phy_seq_props); i++) {
> + ret = of_property_read_s32(node, phy_seq_props[i], &val);
> + if (!ret)
> + hsphy_override_param_update_val(cfg[i], val, &update_seq_cfg[i]);
> + }
> +}
> +
Can we add a dev_dbg here to aid the debugging?
All the functions defined in this driver has qcom_snps_hsphy_xxxx convention.
Lets follow the same.
> static int qcom_snps_hsphy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> @@ -352,6 +599,7 @@ static int qcom_snps_hsphy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> dev_set_drvdata(dev, hsphy);
> phy_set_drvdata(generic_phy, hsphy);
> + phy_read_param_override_seq(dev);
>
> phy_provider = devm_of_phy_provider_register(dev, of_phy_simple_xlate);
> if (!IS_ERR(phy_provider))
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Bjorn/Vinod,
I have reviewed this patch on our internal review system. The basic design
looks good to me. Can you please review the patch and provide your inputs.
Thanks,
Pavan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists