From: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To: "Asutosh Das (asd)" <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
alim.akhtar@samsung.com, beanhuo@micron.com,
Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
bvanassche@acm.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
peter.wang@mediatek.com, cc.chou@mediatek.com,
andy.teng@mediatek.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
chun-hung.wu@mediatek.com, avri.altman@wdc.com,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, jiajie.hao@mediatek.com,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
chaotian.jing@mediatek.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
martin.petersen@oracle.com, kuohong.wang@mediatek.com,
nguyenb@codeaurora.org, alice.chao@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] scsi: ufs: Remove pre-defined initial VCC voltage values
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 11:29:29 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e2a2c2c7e4de03ac04d812b95aa55c69@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bf6e03ee-95ab-4768-7ce5-7f196ab6db60@codeaurora.org>
On 2020-12-01 11:19, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
> On 11/30/2020 6:53 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> On Mon 30 Nov 17:54 CST 2020, 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 <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Am open to other ideas though.
>>>
>>
>> But that means that for a board where we don't know (don't want to
>> know)
>> if we have a 2.x or 3.x device we need to set:
>>
>> regulator-min-microvolt = <2.4V>
>> regulator-max-microvolt = <3.6V>
>>
>> And the 2.5V and the two ranges should be hard coded into the ufshcd
>> (in
>> particular if they come from the specification).
>>
>> For devices with only 2.x or 3.x devices,
>> regulator-{min,max}-microvolt
>> should be adjusted accordingly.
>>
>> Note that driving the regulators outside these ranges will either
>> damage
>> the hardware or cause it to misbehave, so these values should be
>> defined
>> in the board.dts anyways.
>>
>> Also note that regulator_set_voltage(2.4V, 3.6V) won't give you "a
>> voltage between 2.4V and 3.6V, it will most likely give either 2.4V or
>> any more specific voltage that we've specified in the board file
>> because
>> the regulator happens to be shared with some other consumer and
>> changing
>> it in runtime would be bad.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bjorn
>>
>
> Understood.
> I also understand that assumptions on the regulator limits in the
> driver is a bad idea. I'm not sure how it's designed, but I should
> think the power-grid design should take care of regulator sharing; if
> it's being shared and the platform supports both 2.x and 3.x. Perhaps,
> such platforms be identified using a dts flag - not sure if that's
> such a good idea though.
>
> I like Stanley's proposal of a vops and let vendors handle it, until
> specs or someone has a better suggestion.
Agree, vops is all we need as of now, please upload a change to add one
properly.
Thanks,
Can Guo.
>
> -asd
_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To: "Asutosh Das (asd)" <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
avri.altman@wdc.com, alim.akhtar@samsung.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
beanhuo@micron.com, 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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] scsi: ufs: Remove pre-defined initial VCC voltage values
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 11:29:29 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e2a2c2c7e4de03ac04d812b95aa55c69@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bf6e03ee-95ab-4768-7ce5-7f196ab6db60@codeaurora.org>
On 2020-12-01 11:19, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
> On 11/30/2020 6:53 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> On Mon 30 Nov 17:54 CST 2020, 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 <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Am open to other ideas though.
>>>
>>
>> But that means that for a board where we don't know (don't want to
>> know)
>> if we have a 2.x or 3.x device we need to set:
>>
>> regulator-min-microvolt = <2.4V>
>> regulator-max-microvolt = <3.6V>
>>
>> And the 2.5V and the two ranges should be hard coded into the ufshcd
>> (in
>> particular if they come from the specification).
>>
>> For devices with only 2.x or 3.x devices,
>> regulator-{min,max}-microvolt
>> should be adjusted accordingly.
>>
>> Note that driving the regulators outside these ranges will either
>> damage
>> the hardware or cause it to misbehave, so these values should be
>> defined
>> in the board.dts anyways.
>>
>> Also note that regulator_set_voltage(2.4V, 3.6V) won't give you "a
>> voltage between 2.4V and 3.6V, it will most likely give either 2.4V or
>> any more specific voltage that we've specified in the board file
>> because
>> the regulator happens to be shared with some other consumer and
>> changing
>> it in runtime would be bad.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bjorn
>>
>
> Understood.
> I also understand that assumptions on the regulator limits in the
> driver is a bad idea. I'm not sure how it's designed, but I should
> think the power-grid design should take care of regulator sharing; if
> it's being shared and the platform supports both 2.x and 3.x. Perhaps,
> such platforms be identified using a dts flag - not sure if that's
> such a good idea though.
>
> I like Stanley's proposal of a vops and let vendors handle it, until
> specs or someone has a better suggestion.
Agree, vops is all we need as of now, please upload a change to add one
properly.
Thanks,
Can Guo.
>
> -asd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-01 3:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-30 9:16 [RFC PATCH v1] scsi: ufs: Remove pre-defined initial VCC voltage values Stanley Chu
2020-11-30 9:16 ` Stanley Chu
2020-11-30 9:16 ` Stanley Chu
2020-11-30 22:51 ` Asutosh Das (asd)
2020-11-30 22:51 ` Asutosh Das (asd)
2020-11-30 23:14 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-11-30 23:14 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-11-30 23:14 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-11-30 23:54 ` Asutosh Das (asd)
2020-11-30 23:54 ` Asutosh Das (asd)
2020-12-01 1:25 ` Stanley Chu
2020-12-01 1:25 ` Stanley Chu
2020-12-01 1:25 ` Stanley Chu
2020-12-01 3:07 ` Asutosh Das (asd)
2020-12-01 3:07 ` Asutosh Das (asd)
2020-12-01 6:54 ` Stanley Chu
2020-12-01 6:54 ` Stanley Chu
2020-12-01 6:54 ` Stanley Chu
2020-12-01 7:00 ` Avri Altman
2020-12-01 7:00 ` Avri Altman
2020-12-01 7:00 ` Avri Altman
2020-12-02 7:36 ` nguyenb
2020-12-02 7:36 ` nguyenb
2020-12-01 2:53 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-12-01 2:53 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-12-01 2:53 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-12-01 3:19 ` Asutosh Das (asd)
2020-12-01 3:19 ` Asutosh Das (asd)
2020-12-01 3:29 ` Can Guo [this message]
2020-12-01 3:29 ` Can Guo
2020-12-01 3:33 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-12-01 3:33 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-12-01 3:33 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-11-30 23:09 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-11-30 23:09 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-11-30 23:09 ` Bjorn Andersson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e2a2c2c7e4de03ac04d812b95aa55c69@codeaurora.org \
--to=cang@codeaurora.org \
--cc=alice.chao@mediatek.com \
--cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
--cc=andy.teng@mediatek.com \
--cc=asutoshd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=beanhuo@micron.com \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=cc.chou@mediatek.com \
--cc=chaotian.jing@mediatek.com \
--cc=chun-hung.wu@mediatek.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jiajie.hao@mediatek.com \
--cc=kuohong.wang@mediatek.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
--cc=nguyenb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=peter.wang@mediatek.com \
--cc=stanley.chu@mediatek.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.