Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Explicitly request UFS reset pin on RK3576

From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
To: Alexey Charkov <alchark@gmail.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>,
	Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>
Cc: shawn.lin@rock-chips.com,
	Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Explicitly request UFS reset pin on RK3576
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 09:55:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5743823.mogB4TqSGs@phil> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6479d7b8-7712-4181-9c82-0021da94d1a8@rock-chips.com>

Am Dienstag, 20. Januar 2026, 02:39:28 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit schrieb Shawn Lin:
> 在 2026/01/19 星期一 17:22, Alexey Charkov 写道:
> > Rockchip RK3576 UFS controller uses a dedicated pin to reset the connected
> > UFS device, which can operate either in a hardware controlled mode or as a
> > GPIO pin.
> > 
> 
> It's the only one 1.2V IO could be used on RK3576 to reset ufs devices,
> except ufs refclk. So it's a dedicated pin for sure if using ufs, that's
> why we put it into rk3576.dtsi.
> 
> > Power-on default is GPIO mode, but the boot ROM reconfigures it to a
> > hardware controlled mode if it uses UFS to load the next boot stage.
> > 
> 
> ROM code could be specific, but the linux/loader driver is compatible，
> so for the coming SoCs, with more 1.2V IO could be used, it's more
> flexible to use gpio-based instead of hardware controlled(of course,
> move reset pinctrl settings into board dts).
> 
> > Given that existing bindings (and rk3576.dtsi) expect a GPIO-controlled
> > device reset, request the required pin config explicitly.
> > 
> > This doesn't appear to affect Linux, but it does affect U-boot:
> > 
> 
> IIUC, it's more or less a fix for loader, more precisely U-boot here?
> I'm not entirely certain about the handling here, is it standard
> convention to add a fixes tag in this context?

Yes, a fixes tag is warranted here, in Linux it "only" fixes a potential
issue due to the mismatch between pinconfig and gpio during probe.

nce this patch then enters the kernel, it can be cherry-picked to
the current u-boot development cycle. I don't think u-boot is doing
stable releases though, so U-Boot will only profit for the next
version where this is included.

Heiko