Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: add phy support for sdhci-of-arasan

[Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>]

Hi,

On 10/20/2015 09:05 AM, Shawn Lin wrote:
> This patch adds Generic PHY access for sdhci-of-arasan. Driver
> can get PHY handler from dt-binding, and power-on/init the PHY.
> Also we add pm ops for PHY here if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is enabled.
> Currently, it's just mandatory for arasan,sdhci-5.1.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>
> 
> Serise-changes: 3
> - remove phy_init/exit for suspend/resume
> - adjust phy_int/power_on seq to make code more reasonable
> - simplify suspend/resume_phy
> 
> Serise-changes: 2
> - Keep phy as a mandatory requirement for arasan,sdhci-5.1
> 
> ---
> 
> Changes in v2: None
> 
>  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 87 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c
> index 75379cb..85bd0f9d 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/phy/phy.h>
>  #include "sdhci-pltfm.h"
>  
>  #define SDHCI_ARASAN_CLK_CTRL_OFFSET	0x2c
> @@ -35,6 +36,7 @@
>   */
>  struct sdhci_arasan_data {
>  	struct clk	*clk_ahb;
> +	struct phy	*phy;
>  };
>  
>  static unsigned int sdhci_arasan_get_timeout_clock(struct sdhci_host *host)
> @@ -70,6 +72,42 @@ static struct sdhci_pltfm_data sdhci_arasan_pdata = {
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>  /**
> +  * sdhci_arasan_suspend_phy - Suspend phy method for the driver
> +  * @phy:        Handler of phy structure
> +  * Returns 0 on success and error value on error
> +  *
> +  * Put the phy in a deactive state.
> +  */

This is not kernel-doc format.
Try this and fix it.

./scripts/kernel-doc -man -v drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c > /dev/null

> +static int sdhci_arasan_suspend_phy(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	ret = phy_power_off(phy);
> +	if (ret)
> +		phy_power_on(phy);

I am curious about this logic. If power_off fails I would expect that
phy could still have power_on. Or not?

Thanks,
Michal