| 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: <15d512a6-6207-4000-b714-781af9b0f2ee@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:51:36 +0530
From: Ram Kumar Dwivedi <ram.dwivedi@....qualcomm.com>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
Cc: alim.akhtar@...sung.com, avri.altman@....com, bvanassche@....org,
robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Anjana Hari <anjana.hari@....qualcomm.com>,
Shazad Hussain <shazad.hussain@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/4] ufs: ufs-qcom: Add support for firmware-managed
resource abstraction
On 08-Jan-26 10:12 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 07:10:08PM +0530, Ram Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
>> Add a compatible string for SA8255p platforms where resources such as
>> PHY, clocks, regulators, and resets are managed by firmware through an
>> SCMI server. Use the SCMI power protocol to abstract these resources and
>> invoke power operations via runtime PM APIs (pm_runtime_get/put_sync).
>>
>> Introduce vendor operations (vops) for SA8255p targets to enable SCMI-
>> based resource control. In this model, capabilities like clock scaling
>> and gating are not yet supported; these will be added incrementally.
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Anjana Hari <anjana.hari@....qualcomm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Anjana Hari <anjana.hari@....qualcomm.com>
>> Co-developed-by: Shazad Hussain <shazad.hussain@....qualcomm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Shazad Hussain <shazad.hussain@....qualcomm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ram Kumar Dwivedi <ram.dwivedi@....qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 164 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> index 8ebee0cc5313..ddca7b344642 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>> #include <linux/of.h>
>> #include <linux/phy/phy.h>
>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/pm_domain.h>
>> #include <linux/reset-controller.h>
>> #include <linux/time.h>
>> #include <linux/unaligned.h>
>> @@ -619,6 +620,27 @@ static int ufs_qcom_hce_enable_notify(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> +static int ufs_qcom_fw_managed_hce_enable_notify(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>> + enum ufs_notify_change_status status)
>> +{
>> + struct ufs_qcom_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba);
>> +
>> + switch (status) {
>> + case PRE_CHANGE:
>> + ufs_qcom_select_unipro_mode(host);
>> + break;
>> + case POST_CHANGE:
>> + ufs_qcom_enable_hw_clk_gating(hba);
>> + ufs_qcom_ice_enable(host);
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + dev_err(hba->dev, "Invalid status %d\n", status);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * ufs_qcom_cfg_timers - Configure ufs qcom cfg timers
>> *
>> @@ -789,6 +811,38 @@ static int ufs_qcom_resume(struct ufs_hba *hba, enum ufs_pm_op pm_op)
>> return ufs_qcom_ice_resume(host);
>> }
>>
>> +static int ufs_qcom_fw_managed_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba, enum ufs_pm_op pm_op,
>> + enum ufs_notify_change_status status)
>> +{
>> + struct ufs_qcom_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba);
>> +
>> + if (status == PRE_CHANGE)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (hba->spm_lvl != UFS_PM_LVL_5) {
>> + dev_err(hba->dev, "Unsupported spm level %d\n", hba->spm_lvl);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> After the sysfs change, do you still need this check?
Hi Mani,
I will remove this check in the next version.
Thanks,
Ram.
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + pm_runtime_put_sync(hba->dev);
>> +
>> + return ufs_qcom_ice_suspend(host);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int ufs_qcom_fw_managed_resume(struct ufs_hba *hba, enum ufs_pm_op pm_op)
>> +{
>> + struct ufs_qcom_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba);
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + err = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(hba->dev);
>> + if (err) {
>> + dev_err(hba->dev, "PM runtime resume failed: %d\n", err);
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return ufs_qcom_ice_resume(host);
>> +}
>> +
>> static void ufs_qcom_dev_ref_clk_ctrl(struct ufs_qcom_host *host, bool enable)
>> {
>> if (host->dev_ref_clk_ctrl_mmio &&
>> @@ -1421,6 +1475,55 @@ static void ufs_qcom_exit(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>> phy_exit(host->generic_phy);
>> }
>>
>> +static int ufs_qcom_fw_managed_init(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = hba->dev;
>> + struct ufs_qcom_host *host;
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + host = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*host), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!host)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + host->hba = hba;
>> + ufshcd_set_variant(hba, host);
>> +
>> + ufs_qcom_get_controller_revision(hba, &host->hw_ver.major,
>> + &host->hw_ver.minor, &host->hw_ver.step);
>> +
>> + err = ufs_qcom_ice_init(host);
>> + if (err)
>> + goto out_variant_clear;
>> +
>> + ufs_qcom_get_default_testbus_cfg(host);
>> + err = ufs_qcom_testbus_config(host);
>> + if (err)
>> + /* Failure is non-fatal */
>> + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to configure the testbus %d\n", err);
>> +
>> + hba->caps |= UFSHCD_CAP_WB_EN;
>> +
>> + ufs_qcom_advertise_quirks(hba);
>> + host->hba->quirks &= ~UFSHCD_QUIRK_REINIT_AFTER_MAX_GEAR_SWITCH;
>> +
>> + hba->pm_lvl_min = UFS_PM_LVL_5;
>> + hba->spm_lvl = hba->rpm_lvl = hba->pm_lvl_min;
>
> hba->spm_lvl = hba->rpm_lvl = hba->pm_lvl_min = UFS_PM_LVL_5; ?
Hi Mani,
I will update this to a single-line assignment as suggested in the next version.
Thanks,
Ram
>
>> +
>> + ufs_qcom_set_host_params(hba);
>> + ufs_qcom_parse_gear_limits(hba);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +out_variant_clear:
>> + ufshcd_set_variant(hba, NULL);
>> + return err;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void ufs_qcom_fw_managed_exit(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>> +{
>> + pm_runtime_put_sync(hba->dev);
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * ufs_qcom_set_clk_40ns_cycles - Configure 40ns clk cycles
>> *
>> @@ -1950,6 +2053,39 @@ static int ufs_qcom_device_reset(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * ufs_qcom_fw_managed_device_reset - Reset UFS device under FW-managed design
>> + * @hba: pointer to UFS host bus adapter
>> + *
>> + * In the firmware-managed reset model, cold boot power-on is handled
>> + * automatically by the PM domain framework during SCMI protocol init,
>
> No. genpd handles the power on for the power domain before UFS controller driver
> probes. SCMI protocol init has nothing to do with it.
Hi Mani,
I have updated the comment in the next version to clarify that
genpd handles the power-on.
Thanks,
Ram.
>
> - Mani
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists