Re: [PATCH 1/2] phy: samsung: phy-exynos-pcie: sanitize init/power_on callbacks

From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Cc: "Marek Szyprowski" <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
	"Jingoo Han" <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
	"Alim Akhtar" <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
	"Kishon Vijay Abraham I" <kishon@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] phy: samsung: phy-exynos-pcie: sanitize init/power_on callbacks
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 17:43:03 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220715224303.GA1207726@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YtFRAkt4onP4CZIj@matsya>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:05:30PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 12-07-22, 15:12, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 11:55:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > On 29-06-22, 00:04, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > > The exynos-pcie driver called phy_power_on() and then phy_init() for some
> > > > historical reasons. However the generic PHY framework assumes that the
> > > > proper sequence is to call phy_init() first, then phy_power_on(). The
> > > > operations done by both functions should be considered as one action and
> > > > as such they are called by the exynos-pcie driver (without doing anything
> > > > between them). The initialization is just a sequence of register writes,
> > > > which cannot be altered, without breaking the hardware operation.
> > > > 
> > > > To match the generic PHY framework requirement, simply move all register
> > > > writes to the phy_init()/phy_exit() and drop power_on()/power_off()
> > > > callbacks. This way the driver will also work with the old (incorrect)
> > > > PHY initialization call sequence.
> > > 
> > > Is the plan to merge thru pcie tree?
> > 
> > I guess these patches should go together.  I don't see any major
> > exynos series pending, but I do have two minor pci-exynos.c patches in
> > the queue.
> > 
> > If you ack it (after resolution of your question below) I'd be happy
> > to take both if it doesn't cause trouble for you.
> 
> Done now.

Is this an ack?

I didn't see any response to your question (added back below).  Are
you happy with the patch as-is?

> > > > @@ -51,6 +51,13 @@ static int exynos5433_pcie_phy_init(struct phy *phy)
> > > >  {
> > > >       struct exynos_pcie_phy *ep = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> > > >
> > > > +     regmap_update_bits(ep->pmureg, EXYNOS5433_PMU_PCIE_PHY_OFFSET,
> > > > +                        BIT(0), 1);
> > > > +     regmap_update_bits(ep->fsysreg, PCIE_EXYNOS5433_PHY_GLOBAL_RESET,
> > > > +                        PCIE_APP_REQ_EXIT_L1_MODE, 0);
> > > > +     regmap_update_bits(ep->fsysreg, PCIE_EXYNOS5433_PHY_L1SUB_CM_CON,
> > > > +                        PCIE_REFCLK_GATING_EN, 0);
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > why not retain exynos5433_pcie_phy_power_on() and call it from here and
> > > drop in ops. It would be clear to reader that these are for turning on
> > > the phy...

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy