Re: [PATCH v5 11/11] scsi: ufs-exynos: add UFS host support for Exynos SoCs

Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-17T08:50:17Z

On Monday 09 November 2015 10:56:27 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>

I had looked at earlier versions of this and the new version looks
much better. Just a few things I noticed:

> 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 | 1304 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-exynos.h | 247 ++++++++
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h | 26 +-
> drivers/scsi/ufs/unipro.h | 47 ++

It looks like an arbitrary split to separate out ufs-exynos-hw.{c,h} from
ufs-exynos.{c,h}, it would become simpler if you just put the four files
into one.

>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/Kconfig b/drivers/scsi/ufs/Kconfig
> index 5f4530744e0a..bc602be94458 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/Kconfig
> @@ -83,3 +83,15 @@ config SCSI_UFS_QCOM
>
> Select this if you have UFS controller on QCOM chipset.
> If unsure, say N.
> +
> +config SCSI_UFS_EXYNOS
> + bool "EXYNOS specific hooks to UFS controller platform driver"
> + depends on SCSI_UFSHCD_PLATFORM && ARCH_EXYNOS || COMPILE_TEST

Maybe use

depends on SCSI_UFSHCD_PLATFORM && (ARCH_EXYNOS || COMPILE_TEST)

for clarity? nobody can remember the order in which this gets evaluated. ;-)

> + select PHY_EXYNOS_UFS
> + help
> + This selects the EXYNOS specific additions to UFSHCD platform driver.
> + UFS host on EXYNOS includes HCI and UNIPRO layer, and associates with
> + UFS-PHY driver.

Is it allowed to select PHY_EXYNOS_UFS without having a dependency on other
symbols?

> +static int exynos7_ufs_pre_link(struct exynos_ufs *ufs)
> +{
> + struct ufs_hba *hba = ufs->hba;
> + u32 val = ufs->drv_data->uic_attr->pa_dbg_option_suite;
> + int i;
> +
> + exynos_ufs_enable_ov_tm(hba);
> + for_each_ufs_tx_lane(ufs, i)
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB_SEL(0x297, i), 0x17);
> + for_each_ufs_rx_lane(ufs, i) {
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB_SEL(0x362, i), 0xff);
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB_SEL(0x363, i), 0x00);
> + }
> + exynos_ufs_disable_ov_tm(hba);
> +
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB(PA_DBG_OPTION_SUITE_DYN), 0xf);
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB(PA_DBG_OPTION_SUITE_DYN), 0xf);
> + for_each_ufs_tx_lane(ufs, i)
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba,
> + UIC_ARG_MIB_SEL(TX_HIBERN8_CONTROL, i), 0x0);
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB(PA_DBG_TXPHY_CFGUPDT), 0x1);
> + udelay(1);
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB(PA_DBG_OPTION_SUITE), val | (1 << 12));
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB(PA_DBG_SKIP_RESET_PHY), 0x1);
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB(PA_DBG_SKIP_LINE_RESET), 0x1);
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB(PA_DBG_LINE_RESET_REQ), 0x1);
> + udelay(1600);
> + ufshcd_dme_set(hba, UIC_ARG_MIB(PA_DBG_OPTION_SUITE), val);

1.6 ms is a long time to block the CPU for. Are you allowed to call
msleep() or uleep_range() in this function instead?

> +struct exynos_ufs_drv_data exynos_ufs_drvs[] = {
> +{
> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos7-ufs",
> + .uic_attr = &exynos7_uic_attr,
> + .quirks = UFSHCI_QUIRK_BYTE_ALIGN_UTRD |
> + UFSHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_REQ_LIST_CLR |
> + UFSHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_HCE |
> + UFSHCI_QUIRK_SKIP_RESET_INTR_AGGR,
> + .opts = EXYNOS_UFS_OPT_HAS_APB_CLK_CTRL |
> + EXYNOS_UFS_OPT_BROKEN_AUTO_CLK_CTRL |
> + EXYNOS_UFS_OPT_BROKEN_RX_SEL_IDX,
> + .drv_init = exynos7_ufs_drv_init,
> + .pre_link = exynos7_ufs_pre_link,
> + .post_link = exynos7_ufs_post_link,
> + .pre_pwr_change = exynos7_ufs_pre_pwr_change,
> + .post_pwr_change = exynos7_ufs_post_pwr_change,
> +}, {
> +}, };

An array like this is probably not the ideal way to express it,
in particular when there is only one entry. More on that below.

> +static int exynos_ufs_parse_dt(struct device *dev, struct exynos_ufs *ufs)
> +{
> + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> + struct exynos_ufs_drv_data *drv_data = exynos_ufs_drvs;
> + struct exynos_ufs_uic_attr *attr;
> + u32 freq[2];
> + int ret;
> +
> + while (drv_data->compatible) {
> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, drv_data->compatible)) {
> + ufs->drv_data = drv_data;
> + break;
> + }
> + drv_data++;
> + }

Here you loop over the array, but you actually match the compatible list
already in the platform driver subsystem.

> +static const struct of_device_id exynos_ufs_of_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos7-ufs"},
> + {},
> +};

So just put a pointer to the right data into the .data member of of_device_id.

Arnd
--
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