Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] mmc: sdhci-brcmstb: Add BCM2712 support

[Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@gmx.net>]

Hi Andrea,

Am 25.05.24 um 07:39 schrieb Andrea della Porta:
> On 14:26 Tue 21 May     , Stefan Wahren wrote:
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> Am 21.05.24 um 10:35 schrieb Andrea della Porta:
>>> Broadcom BCM2712 SoC has an SDHCI card controller using the SDIO CFG
>>> register block present on other STB chips. Add support for BCM2712
>>> SD capabilities of this chipset.
>>> The silicon is SD Express capable but this driver port does not currently
>>> include that feature yet.
>>> Based on downstream driver by raspberry foundation maintained kernel.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@suse.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-brcmstb.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 65 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-brcmstb.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-brcmstb.c
>>> index 9053526fa212..b349262da36e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-brcmstb.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-brcmstb.c
>>> @@ -30,6 +30,21 @@
>>>
>>>    #define SDHCI_ARASAN_CQE_BASE_ADDR		0x200
>>>
>>> +#define SDIO_CFG_CQ_CAPABILITY			0x4c
>>> +#define SDIO_CFG_CQ_CAPABILITY_FMUL		GENMASK(13, 12)
>>> +
>>> +#define SDIO_CFG_CTRL				0x0
>>> +#define SDIO_CFG_CTRL_SDCD_N_TEST_EN		BIT(31)
>>> +#define SDIO_CFG_CTRL_SDCD_N_TEST_LEV		BIT(30)
>>> +
>>> +#define SDIO_CFG_MAX_50MHZ_MODE			0x1ac
>>> +#define SDIO_CFG_MAX_50MHZ_MODE_STRAP_OVERRIDE	BIT(31)
>>> +#define SDIO_CFG_MAX_50MHZ_MODE_ENABLE		BIT(0)
>>> +
>>> +#define MMC_CAP_HSE_MASK	(MMC_CAP2_HSX00_1_2V | MMC_CAP2_HSX00_1_8V)
>>> +/* Select all SD UHS type I SDR speed above 50MB/s */
>>> +#define MMC_CAP_UHS_I_SDR_MASK	(MMC_CAP_UHS_SDR50 | MMC_CAP_UHS_SDR104)
>>> +
>>>    struct sdhci_brcmstb_priv {
>>>    	void __iomem *cfg_regs;
>>>    	unsigned int flags;
>>> @@ -38,6 +53,7 @@ struct sdhci_brcmstb_priv {
>>>    };
>>>
>>>    struct brcmstb_match_priv {
>>> +	void (*cfginit)(struct sdhci_host *host);
>>>    	void (*hs400es)(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_ios *ios);
>>>    	struct sdhci_ops *ops;
>>>    	const unsigned int flags;
>>> @@ -168,6 +184,38 @@ static void sdhci_brcmstb_set_uhs_signaling(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>>    	sdhci_writew(host, ctrl_2, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2);
>>>    }
>>>
>>> +static void sdhci_brcmstb_cfginit_2712(struct sdhci_host *host)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
>>> +	struct sdhci_brcmstb_priv *brcmstb_priv = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host);
>>> +	u32 reg, base_clk_mhz;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * If we support a speed that requires tuning,
>>> +	 * then select the delay line PHY as the clock source.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if ((host->mmc->caps & MMC_CAP_UHS_I_SDR_MASK) || (host->mmc->caps2 & MMC_CAP_HSE_MASK)) {
>>> +		reg = readl(brcmstb_priv->cfg_regs + SDIO_CFG_MAX_50MHZ_MODE);
>>> +		reg &= ~SDIO_CFG_MAX_50MHZ_MODE_ENABLE;
>>> +		reg |= SDIO_CFG_MAX_50MHZ_MODE_STRAP_OVERRIDE;
>>> +		writel(reg, brcmstb_priv->cfg_regs + SDIO_CFG_MAX_50MHZ_MODE);
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if ((host->mmc->caps & MMC_CAP_NONREMOVABLE) ||
>>> +	    (host->mmc->caps & MMC_CAP_NEEDS_POLL)) {
>>> +		/* Force presence */
>>> +		reg = readl(brcmstb_priv->cfg_regs + SDIO_CFG_CTRL);
>>> +		reg &= ~SDIO_CFG_CTRL_SDCD_N_TEST_LEV;
>>> +		reg |= SDIO_CFG_CTRL_SDCD_N_TEST_EN;
>>> +		writel(reg, brcmstb_priv->cfg_regs + SDIO_CFG_CTRL);
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	/* Guesstimate the timer frequency (controller base clock) */
>>> +	base_clk_mhz = max_t(u32, clk_get_rate(pltfm_host->clk) / (1000 * 1000), 1);
>>> +	reg = SDIO_CFG_CQ_CAPABILITY_FMUL | base_clk_mhz;
>>> +	writel(reg, brcmstb_priv->cfg_regs + SDIO_CFG_CQ_CAPABILITY);
>> This part assumes the clock isn't changed afterwards, see below ...
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>    static void sdhci_brcmstb_dumpregs(struct mmc_host *mmc)
>>>    {
>>>    	sdhci_dumpregs(mmc_priv(mmc));
>>> @@ -200,6 +248,14 @@ static struct sdhci_ops sdhci_brcmstb_ops = {
>>>    	.set_uhs_signaling = sdhci_set_uhs_signaling,
>>>    };
>>>
>>> +static struct sdhci_ops sdhci_brcmstb_ops_2712 = {
>>> +	.set_clock = sdhci_set_clock,
>>> +	.set_power = sdhci_set_power_and_bus_voltage,
>>> +	.set_bus_width = sdhci_set_bus_width,
>>> +	.reset = sdhci_reset,
>>> +	.set_uhs_signaling = sdhci_set_uhs_signaling,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>    static struct sdhci_ops sdhci_brcmstb_ops_7216 = {
>>>    	.set_clock = sdhci_brcmstb_set_clock,
>>>    	.set_bus_width = sdhci_set_bus_width,
>>> @@ -214,6 +270,11 @@ static struct sdhci_ops sdhci_brcmstb_ops_74165b0 = {
>>>    	.set_uhs_signaling = sdhci_brcmstb_set_uhs_signaling,
>>>    };
>>>
>>> +static const struct brcmstb_match_priv match_priv_2712 = {
>>> +	.cfginit = sdhci_brcmstb_cfginit_2712,
>>> +	.ops = &sdhci_brcmstb_ops_2712,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>    static struct brcmstb_match_priv match_priv_7425 = {
>>>    	.flags = BRCMSTB_MATCH_FLAGS_NO_64BIT |
>>>    	BRCMSTB_MATCH_FLAGS_BROKEN_TIMEOUT,
>>> @@ -238,6 +299,7 @@ static struct brcmstb_match_priv match_priv_74165b0 = {
>>>    };
>>>
>>>    static const struct of_device_id __maybe_unused sdhci_brcm_of_match[] = {
>>> +	{ .compatible = "brcm,bcm2712-sdhci", .data = &match_priv_2712 },
>>>    	{ .compatible = "brcm,bcm7425-sdhci", .data = &match_priv_7425 },
>>>    	{ .compatible = "brcm,bcm7445-sdhci", .data = &match_priv_7445 },
>>>    	{ .compatible = "brcm,bcm7216-sdhci", .data = &match_priv_7216 },
>>> @@ -370,6 +432,9 @@ static int sdhci_brcmstb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>    	    (host->mmc->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_HS400_ES))
>>>    		host->mmc_host_ops.hs400_enhanced_strobe = match_priv->hs400es;
>>>
>>> +	if (match_priv->cfginit)
>>> +		match_priv->cfginit(host);
>>> +
>> I'm not sure this is the right place to call cfginit.
>> sdhci_brcmstb_cfginit_2712 retrives the current controller base clock,
>> but at the end of  sdhci_brcmstb_probe this clock frequency could be
>> adjusted by the device property "clock-frequency". So i'm not sure this
>> is intended.
> I've tried to interpret the meaning of those two clocks since unfortunately I don't
> own the datasheet for any of the platforms involved, so please take the following
> as the result of my own (possibly wrong) intuition and (mostly wild) guessing.
>
> The main clock is 'sw_sdio' while 'sdio_freq' is optional and the latter seems to be
> orthogonal to the former.
> While sw_sdio is mostly used for SD storage card, sdio_freq seems more related to
> SDIO family of cards (wifi, gps, camera, etc) for which you could specify a particular
> (and higher) base frequency.
> Unfortunately I wasn't able to find any reference to sdio_freq in current devicetree
> so it's probably only specific to custom appliances: to be honest I'm not even sure
> that BCM2712 is supporting that improved clock source.  Also, from the following lines
> at the end of cfginit function:
>
> /* Guesstimate the timer frequency (controller base clock) */
> base_clk_mhz = max_t(u32, clk_get_rate(pltfm_host->clk) / (1000 * 1000), 1);
> reg = SDIO_CFG_CQ_CAPABILITY_FMUL | base_clk_mhz;
> writel(reg, brcmstb_priv->cfg_regs + SDIO_CFG_CQ_CAPABILITY);
>
> judging from the name of SDIO_CFG_CQ_CAPABILITY register, I'd guess that it relates
> to some Command Queue (timeout?) setting so it's probably only important if CQE is
> enabled specifying 'supports-cqe' property, which is not in current devicetree (nor
> in  downstream one). If this is the case it's mostly a performance improvement, and
> as such something that we are not necessarily interested in right now since this
> patchset adds just minimal boot support. I would then drop those lines, as we could
> just reintroduce them if they need be once we have a better understanding of that
> specific register and/if the cqe support will be enabled. As a matter of fact those
> lines are not working as expected in any case since pltfm_host->clk is set at the
> very end of sdhci_brcmstb_probe() while the cfginit function is invoked much earlier.
> The result is that right now the value set ito SDIO_CFG_CQ_CAPABILITY register is always
> equal to 1MHz. Further testing reveals that it is indeed working fine even with those
> lines dropped, so I would deem that code as unnecessary for this early patchset.
> Is it a viable solution?
I don't have any knowledge about this hardware, so my opinion based on
your good investigations. But i would be fine with this.

Just to make it clear, this works with and without U-Boot in the bootchain?

Thanks
>
> Many thanks,
> Andrea
>
>>>    	/*
>>>    	 * Supply the existing CAPS, but clear the UHS modes. This
>>>    	 * will allow these modes to be specified by device tree