linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6115: Move SDHC node(s)'s 'pinctrl' properties to dts

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]

Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:21:48 +0530
From:   Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>
To:     Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
        andersson@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        agross@...nel.org, bhupesh.linux@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6115: Move SDHC node(s)'s 'pinctrl'
 properties to dts

Thanks Marjin for the review. Sorry for the delay in replying to your 
comments.

On 12/22/22 3:40 AM, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2022-12-20 17:06:16, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
>> Normally the 'pinctrl' properties of a SDHC controller and the
>> chip detect pin settings are dependent on the type of the slots
>> (for e.g uSD card slot), regulators and GPIO(s) available on the
>> board(s).
> 
> I always thought it was okay to give the `sdcX_*` pins to the sdhc_X
> node unconditionally in SoC DTSI, and leave board-dependent card-detect
> (if this SDHCI slot is even used for removable cards) pins to the board
> DTS.
> 
>> So, move the same from the sm6115 dtsi file to the respective
>> board file(s).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>
> 
> Thanks for cleaning this up, we're already using this pattern in quite a
> few SoCs now.

Sure. But since they are being used in other SoC DTSIs doesn't guarantee 
the correct demarcation between SoC DTSI and Board DTS :)

> Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
> 
> Though...
> 
>> ---
>>   .../boot/dts/qcom/sm4250-oneplus-billie2.dts  | 10 +++++++++
>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi          | 22 -------------------
>>   2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm4250-oneplus-billie2.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm4250-oneplus-billie2.dts
>> index a3f1c7c41fd73..329eb496bbc5f 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm4250-oneplus-billie2.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm4250-oneplus-billie2.dts
>> @@ -202,12 +202,22 @@ &sdhc_2 {
>>   	vqmmc-supply = <&vreg_l5a>;
>>   
>>   	cd-gpios = <&tlmm 88 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>> +	pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
>> +	pinctrl-0 = <&sdc2_state_on &sdc2_card_det_n>;
>> +	pinctrl-1 = <&sdc2_state_off &sdc2_card_det_n>;
>>   
>>   	status = "okay";
>>   };
>>   
>>   &tlmm {
>>   	gpio-reserved-ranges = <14 4>;
>> +
>> +	sdc2_card_det_n: sd-card-det-n-state {
>> +		pins = "gpio88";
>> +		function = "gpio";
>> +		drive-strength = <2>;
>> +		bias-pull-up;
> 
> Note that SoC DTSI uses bias-disable in the off state.

The downstream uses bias-pull-up instead, as is the case with other 
upstream qcom dtsi (see [1] and [2]).

[1]. 
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qrb5165-rb5.dts#L1242

[2]. 
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts#L783

>> +	};
>>   };
>>   
>>   &ufs_mem_hc {
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi
>> index 572bf04adf906..6be763d39870d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi
>> @@ -518,13 +518,6 @@ data-pins {
>>   					bias-pull-up;
>>   					drive-strength = <10>;
>>   				};
>> -
>> -				sd-cd-pins {
>> -					pins = "gpio88";
>> -					function = "gpio";
>> -					bias-pull-up;
>> -					drive-strength = <2>;
>> -				};
>>   			};
>>   
>>   			sdc2_state_off: sdc2-off-state {
>> @@ -545,13 +538,6 @@ data-pins {
>>   					bias-pull-up;
>>   					drive-strength = <2>;
>>   				};
>> -
>> -				sd-cd-pins {
>> -					pins = "gpio88";
>> -					function = "gpio";
>> -					bias-disable;
>> -					drive-strength = <2>;
>> -				};
>>   			};
>>   		};
>>   
>> @@ -652,10 +638,6 @@ sdhc_1: mmc@...4000 {
>>   				 <&gcc GCC_SDCC1_ICE_CORE_CLK>;
>>   			clock-names = "iface", "core", "xo", "ice";
>>   
>> -			pinctrl-0 = <&sdc1_state_on>;
>> -			pinctrl-1 = <&sdc1_state_off>;
>> -			pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
>> -
> 
> You can probably leave these and below?  Only boards needing to extend
> pinctrl with board-specific SDCard pins would have to update/override
> these properties that way?

I disagree on this. But let's defer to @Bjorn for further inputs on the 
same.

Thanks,
Bhupesh

>>   			bus-width = <8>;
>>   			status = "disabled";
>>   		};
>> @@ -672,10 +654,6 @@ sdhc_2: mmc@...4000 {
>>   			clocks = <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_AHB_CLK>, <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_APPS_CLK>, <&xo_board>;
>>   			clock-names = "iface", "core", "xo";
>>   
>> -			pinctrl-0 = <&sdc2_state_on>;
>> -			pinctrl-1 = <&sdc2_state_off>;
>> -			pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
>> -
>>   			power-domains = <&rpmpd SM6115_VDDCX>;
>>   			operating-points-v2 = <&sdhc2_opp_table>;
>>   			iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x00a0 0x0>;
>> -- 
>> 2.38.1
>>