linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] phy: qcom-qmp-ufs: Add Phy Configuration support for SC7280

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAA8EJppYD8Oq_fkOOKf8_x7RdbjBx7XzV_5y4sKE3ZDv_WV9_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 21:33:53 +0300
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To:     Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
        vkoul@...nel.org, kishon@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Manish Pandey <quic_mapa@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] phy: qcom-qmp-ufs: Add Phy Configuration support
 for SC7280

On Fri, 15 Sept 2023 at 19:14, Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/6/2023 1:34 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On 23/08/2023 12:17, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> >> Add SC7280 specific register layout and table configs.
> >>
> >> Co-developed-by: Manish Pandey <quic_mapa@...cinc.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Manish Pandey <quic_mapa@...cinc.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-ufs.c | 142 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   1 file changed, 142 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-ufs.c
> >> b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-ufs.c
> >> index 3927eba8e468..514fa14df634 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-ufs.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-ufs.c
> >
> > [skipped tables programming]
> >
> > 4),
> Sorry I quite didn't get this comment. what exactly is skipped ?Please
> can you help explain?

I skipped them, as I didn't have comments for them.

>
>
> >> @@ -888,6 +993,40 @@ static const struct qmp_phy_cfg
> >> sa8775p_ufsphy_cfg = {
> >>       .regs            = ufsphy_v5_regs_layout,
> >>   };
> >>
> >> +static const struct qmp_phy_cfg sc7280_ufsphy_cfg = {
> >> +    .lanes                  = 2,
> >> +
> >> +    .offsets                = &qmp_ufs_offsets,
> >> +
> >> +    .tbls = {
> >> +        .serdes         = sm8150_ufsphy_serdes,
> >> +        .serdes_num     = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8150_ufsphy_serdes),
> >> +        .tx             = sc7280_ufsphy_tx,
> >> +        .tx_num         = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7280_ufsphy_tx),
> >> +        .rx             = sc7280_ufsphy_rx,
> >> +        .rx_num         = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7280_ufsphy_rx),
> >> +        .pcs            = sc7280_ufsphy_pcs,
> >> +        .pcs_num        = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7280_ufsphy_pcs),
> >> +    },
> >> +    .tbls_hs_b = {
> >> +        .serdes         = sm8150_ufsphy_hs_b_serdes,
> >> +        .serdes_num     = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8150_ufsphy_hs_b_serdes),
> >> +    },
> >> +    .tbls_hs_g4 = {
> >> +        .tx             = sm8250_ufsphy_hs_g4_tx,
> >> +        .tx_num         = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8250_ufsphy_hs_g4_tx),
> >> +        .rx             = sc7280_ufsphy_hs_g4_rx,
> >> +        .rx_num         = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7280_ufsphy_hs_g4_rx),
> >> +        .pcs            = sm8150_ufsphy_hs_g4_pcs,
> >> +        .pcs_num        = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8150_ufsphy_hs_g4_pcs),
> >> +    },
> >> +    .clk_list               = sm8450_ufs_phy_clk_l,
> >> +    .num_clks               = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8450_ufs_phy_clk_l),
> >
> > This doesn't correspond to the bindings. This array has 3 enries, while
> > in the bindings you have opted for two clocks for this PHY.
> Sure. I'll update the bindings.

Are you sure about the third clock? Neither sm8150 nor sm8250 used the
qref clock. Or is that an omission on our side?

>
> >
> >> +    .vreg_list              = qmp_phy_vreg_l,
> >> +    .num_vregs              = ARRAY_SIZE(qmp_phy_vreg_l),
> >> +    .regs                   = ufsphy_v4_regs_layout,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >>   static const struct qmp_phy_cfg sc8280xp_ufsphy_cfg = {
> >>       .lanes            = 2,
> >>
> >> @@ -1648,6 +1787,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id
> >> qmp_ufs_of_match_table[] = {
> >>       }, {
> >>           .compatible = "qcom,sa8775p-qmp-ufs-phy",
> >>           .data = &sa8775p_ufsphy_cfg,
> >> +    }, {
> >> +        .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-qmp-ufs-phy",
> >> +        .data = &sc7280_ufsphy_cfg,
> >>       }, {
> >>           .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-qmp-ufs-phy",
> >>           .data = &sm8150_ufsphy_cfg,
> >> --
> >> 2.17.1
> >>
> >
> Thanks,
> Nitin



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry