From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C61C64E7A for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 03:09:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C902085B for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 03:09:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mg.codeaurora.org header.i=@mg.codeaurora.org header.b="By/88tNa" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727373AbgLADIp (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 22:08:45 -0500 Received: from m42-4.mailgun.net ([69.72.42.4]:27241 "EHLO m42-4.mailgun.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726781AbgLADIp (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 22:08:45 -0500 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1606792104; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: Date: Message-ID: From: References: Cc: To: Subject: Sender; bh=JJP6HmmFioq+F2Ir/f2i+rOYKpDP0oPCLDeC6RavsW4=; b=By/88tNaKmUq4ypDj8UUMcLFiXv0XarHotw2ojCgJ1OpGRZOWveIrgzbh5cpu0JaIaG+66nP 7yeku/aObZ3gCS0YPZLjbb6jyW9DIpMPEGuF1CYWcZOGQrUtE8NuAfgrJd5ejPuvJJ0Pznli /DJv6EdbIlAnoQ167FI7QSl3h38= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.42.4 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI0MWYwYSIsICJsaW51eC1rZXJuZWxAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnIiwgImJlOWU0YSJd Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n01.prod.us-east-1.postgun.com with SMTP id 5fc5b38d1f6054cb8d4ac396 (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Tue, 01 Dec 2020 03:07:57 GMT Sender: asutoshd=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C6167C43468; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 03:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.8.168] (cpe-70-95-149-85.san.res.rr.com [70.95.149.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: asutoshd) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED282C433ED; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 03:07:53 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org ED282C433ED Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=asutoshd@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] scsi: ufs: Remove pre-defined initial VCC voltage values To: Stanley Chu Cc: Bjorn Andersson , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com, avri.altman@wdc.com, alim.akhtar@samsung.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com, beanhuo@micron.com, cang@codeaurora.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, bvanassche@acm.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org, kuohong.wang@mediatek.com, peter.wang@mediatek.com, chun-hung.wu@mediatek.com, andy.teng@mediatek.com, chaotian.jing@mediatek.com, cc.chou@mediatek.com, jiajie.hao@mediatek.com, alice.chao@mediatek.com References: <20201130091610.2752-1-stanley.chu@mediatek.com> <568660cd-80e6-1b8f-d426-4614c9159ff4@codeaurora.org> <4335d590-0506-d920-8e7f-f0f0372780f9@codeaurora.org> <1606785904.23925.25.camel@mtkswgap22> From: "Asutosh Das (asd)" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:07:53 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1606785904.23925.25.camel@mtkswgap22> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/30/2020 5:25 PM, Stanley Chu wrote: > On Mon, 2020-11-30 at 15:54 -0800, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote: >> On 11/30/2020 3:14 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> On Mon 30 Nov 16:51 CST 2020, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/30/2020 1:16 AM, Stanley Chu wrote: >>>>> UFS specficication allows different VCC configurations for UFS devices, >>>>> for example, >>>>> (1). 2.70V - 3.60V (By default) >>>>> (2). 1.70V - 1.95V (Activated if "vcc-supply-1p8" is declared in >>>>> device tree) >>>>> (3). 2.40V - 2.70V (Supported since UFS 3.x) >>>>> >>>>> With the introduction of UFS 3.x products, an issue is happening that >>>>> UFS driver will use wrong "min_uV/max_uV" configuration to toggle VCC >>>>> regulator on UFU 3.x products with VCC configuration (3) used. >>>>> >>>>> To solve this issue, we simply remove pre-defined initial VCC voltage >>>>> values in UFS driver with below reasons, >>>>> >>>>> 1. UFS specifications do not define how to detect the VCC configuration >>>>> supported by attached device. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Device tree already supports standard regulator properties. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore VCC voltage shall be defined correctly in device tree, and >>>>> shall not be changed by UFS driver. What UFS driver needs to do is simply >>>>> enabling or disabling the VCC regulator only. >>>>> >>>>> This is a RFC conceptional patch. Please help review this and feel >>>>> free to feedback any ideas. Once this concept is accepted, and then >>>>> I would post a more completed patch series to fix this issue. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c | 10 +--------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c >>>>> index a6f76399b3ae..3965be03c136 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c >>>>> @@ -133,15 +133,7 @@ static int ufshcd_populate_vreg(struct device *dev, const char *name, >>>>> vreg->max_uA = 0; >>>>> } >>>>> - if (!strcmp(name, "vcc")) { >>>>> - if (of_property_read_bool(np, "vcc-supply-1p8")) { >>>>> - vreg->min_uV = UFS_VREG_VCC_1P8_MIN_UV; >>>>> - vreg->max_uV = UFS_VREG_VCC_1P8_MAX_UV; >>>>> - } else { >>>>> - vreg->min_uV = UFS_VREG_VCC_MIN_UV; >>>>> - vreg->max_uV = UFS_VREG_VCC_MAX_UV; >>>>> - } >>>>> - } else if (!strcmp(name, "vccq")) { >>>>> + if (!strcmp(name, "vccq")) { >>>>> vreg->min_uV = UFS_VREG_VCCQ_MIN_UV; >>>>> vreg->max_uV = UFS_VREG_VCCQ_MAX_UV; >>>>> } else if (!strcmp(name, "vccq2")) { >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Stanley >>>> >>>> Thanks for the patch. Bao (nguyenb) was also working towards something >>>> similar. >>>> Would it be possible for you to take into account the scenario in which the >>>> same platform supports both 2.x and 3.x UFS devices? >>>> >>>> These've different voltage requirements, 2.4v-3.6v. >>>> I'm not sure if standard dts regulator properties can support this. >>>> >>> >>> What is the actual voltage requirement for these devices and how does >>> the software know what voltage to pick in this range? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bjorn >>> >>>> -asd >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, >>>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project >> >> For platforms that support both 2.x (2.7v-3.6v) and 3.x (2.4v-2.7v), the >> voltage requirements (Vcc) are 2.4v-3.6v. The software initializes the >> ufs device at 2.95v & reads the version and if the device is 3.x, it may >> do the following: >> - Set the device power mode to SLEEP >> - Disable the Vcc >> - Enable the Vcc and set it to 2.5v >> - Set the device power mode to ACTIVE >> >> All of the above may be done at HS-G1 & moved to max supported gear >> based on the device version, perhaps? > > Hi Asutosh, > > Thanks for sharing this idea. > > 1. I did not see above flow defined in UFS specifications, please > correct me if I was wrong. > > 2. For above flow, the concern is that I am not sure if all devices > supporting VCC (2.4v - 2.7v) can accept higher voltage, say 2.95v, for > version detection. > > 3. For version detection, another concern is that I am not sure if all > 3.x devices support VCC (2.4v - 2.7v) only, or in other words, I am not > sure if all 2.x devices support VCC (2.7v - 3.6v) only. The above rule > will break any devices not obeying this "conventions". > > For platforms that support both 2.x (2.7v-3.6v) and 3.x (2.4v-2.7v), > > It would be good for UFS drivers detecting the correct voltage if the > protocol is well-defined in specifications. Until that day, any > "non-standard" way may be better implemented in vendor's ops? > > If the vop concept works on your platform, we could still keep struct > ufs_vreg and allow vendors to configure proper min_uV and max_uV to make > regulator_set_voltage() works during VCC toggling flow. Without specific > vendor configurations, min_uV and max_uV would be NULL by default and > UFS core driver will only enable/disasble VCC regulator only without > adjusting its voltage. > I think this would work. Do you plan to implement this? If not, I can take this up. Please let me know. > Maybe one possible another idea is to decide the correct voltage and > configure regulator properly before kernel? > > Thanks, > Stanley Chu > >> >> Am open to other ideas though. >> >> -asd >> > -asd -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, Linux Foundation Collaborative Project