Re: [PATCH v4 11/11] scsi: ufs-exynos: add UFS host support for Exynos SoCs

[Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Kishon
Thanks again for you review.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday 15 October 2015 08:38 AM, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>> +CCing kishon Vijay,
>>
>> On 10/14/2015 06:25 PM, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>>> From: Seungwon Jeon <essuuj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>>>
>>> This patch introduces Exynos UFS host controller driver,
>>> which mainly handles vendor-specific operations including
>>> link startup, power mode change and hibernation/unhibernation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Seungwon Jeon <essuuj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/scsi/ufs/Kconfig         |   12 +
>>>   drivers/scsi/ufs/Makefile        |    1 +
>>>   drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos-hw.c |  131 ++++
>>>   drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos-hw.h |   43 ++
>>>   drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos.c    | 1317
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos.h    |  247 +++++++
>>>   drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h        |   26 +-
>>>   drivers/scsi/ufs/unipro.h        |   47 ++
>>>   8 files changed, 1823 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos-hw.c
>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos-hw.h
>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos.c
>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos.h
>>>
> .
> .
> <snip>
> .
> .
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos-hw.c
>>> b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos-hw.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..be6c61541a8f
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos-hw.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
> .
> .
> <snip>
> .
> .
>>> +
>>> +#define PWR_MODE_STR_LEN    64
>>> +static int exynos_ufs_post_pwr_mode(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>>> +                struct ufs_pa_layer_attr *pwr_max,
>>> +                struct ufs_pa_layer_attr *pwr_req)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct exynos_ufs *ufs = to_exynos_ufs(hba);
>>> +    struct exynos_ufs_phy_info *phy_info = phy_get_drvdata(ufs->phy);
>
> This is abusing the interface. phy_get_drvdata is meant to be used only
> by the PHY driver.
>>> +    struct exynos_ufs_phy_specific_ops *phy_ops =
>>> +                    phy_info->phy_specific_ops;
>
> I'm really not happy about having platform specific ops for PHY. We have
> to see if existing PHY ops can be used for this or in worst case add new
> PHY ops.
Well you said you like the controller driver to use only PHY ops[1], I
am sorry If I misunderstood that point, can you please help me to
understand that?
[1]-> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/18/29

>>> +    struct uic_pwr_mode *pwr = &ufs->pwr_act;
>>> +    char pwr_str[PWR_MODE_STR_LEN] = "";
>>> +    int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +    if (ufs->drv_data->post_pwr_change)
>>> +        ufs->drv_data->post_pwr_change(ufs, pwr);
>>> +
>>> +    if (IS_UFS_PWR_MODE_HS(pwr->mode)) {
>>> +        switch (pwr->hs_series) {
>>> +        case PA_HS_MODE_A:
>>> +        case PA_HS_MODE_B:
>>> +            phy_ops->calibrate_phy(ufs->phy, CFG_POST_PWR_HS,
>>> +                PWR_MODE_HS(pwr->gear, pwr->hs_series));
>>> +            break;
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>> +        ret = phy_ops->wait_for_lock_acq(ufs->phy);
>>> +        snprintf(pwr_str, sizeof(pwr_str), "Fast%s series_%s G_%d L_%d",
>>> +            pwr->mode == FASTAUTO_MODE ? "_Auto" : "",
>>> +            pwr->hs_series == PA_HS_MODE_A ? "A" : "B",
>>> +            pwr->gear, pwr->lane);
>>> +    } else if (IS_UFS_PWR_MODE_PWM(pwr->mode)) {
>>> +        snprintf(pwr_str, sizeof(pwr_str), "Slow%s G_%d L_%d",
>>> +            pwr->mode == SLOWAUTO_MODE ? "_Auto" : "",
>>> +            pwr->gear, pwr->lane);
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    dev_info(hba->dev, "Power mode change %d : %s\n", ret, pwr_str);
>>> +    return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void exynos_ufs_specify_nexus_t_xfer_req(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>>> +                        int tag, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct exynos_ufs *ufs = to_exynos_ufs(hba);
>>> +    u32 type;
>>> +
>>> +    type =  hci_readl(ufs, HCI_UTRL_NEXUS_TYPE);
>>> +
>>> +    if (cmd)
>>> +        hci_writel(ufs, type | (1 << tag), HCI_UTRL_NEXUS_TYPE);
>>> +    else
>>> +        hci_writel(ufs, type & ~(1 << tag), HCI_UTRL_NEXUS_TYPE);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void exynos_ufs_specify_nexus_t_tm_req(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>>> +                        int tag, u8 func)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct exynos_ufs *ufs = to_exynos_ufs(hba);
>>> +    u32 type;
>>> +
>>> +    type =  hci_readl(ufs, HCI_UTMRL_NEXUS_TYPE);
>>> +
>>> +    switch (func) {
>>> +    case UFS_ABORT_TASK:
>>> +    case UFS_QUERY_TASK:
>>> +        hci_writel(ufs, type | (1 << tag), HCI_UTMRL_NEXUS_TYPE);
>>> +        break;
>>> +    case UFS_ABORT_TASK_SET:
>>> +    case UFS_CLEAR_TASK_SET:
>>> +    case UFS_LOGICAL_RESET:
>>> +    case UFS_QUERY_TASK_SET:
>>> +        hci_writel(ufs, type & ~(1 << tag), HCI_UTMRL_NEXUS_TYPE);
>>> +        break;
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void exynos_ufs_phy_init(struct exynos_ufs *ufs)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct ufs_hba *hba = ufs->hba;
>>> +    struct exynos_ufs_phy_info *phy_info = phy_get_drvdata(ufs->phy);
>>> +    struct exynos_ufs_phy_specific_ops *phy_ops =
>>> +                    phy_info->phy_specific_ops;
>>> +
>>> +    if (ufs->avail_ln_rx == 0 || ufs->avail_ln_tx == 0) {
>>> +        ufshcd_dme_get(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB(PA_AVAILRXDATALANES),
>>> +            &ufs->avail_ln_rx);
>>> +        ufshcd_dme_get(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB(PA_AVAILTXDATALANES),
>>> +            &ufs->avail_ln_tx);
>>> +        WARN(ufs->avail_ln_rx != ufs->avail_ln_tx,
>>> +            "available data lane is not equal(rx:%d, tx:%d)\n",
>>> +            ufs->avail_ln_rx, ufs->avail_ln_tx);
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    phy_ops->set_lane_cnt(ufs->phy, ufs->avail_ln_rx);
>
> can't bus_width attribute in phy core be reused for this?
>
I will take a look on it.

>>> +    phy_ops->calibrate_phy(ufs->phy, CFG_PRE_INIT, PWR_MODE_ANY);
>
> Why can't calibrate PHY be directly done in phy_init?
>
This is just one instance, need to calibrate PHY when the ufs pwr mode changes.

> Thanks
> Kishon
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



-- 
Regards,
Alim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html