Re: [PATCH RFC v4 1/1] scsi: ufs: Fix ufs power down/on specs violation

Can Guo
2021-01-05T10:07:27Z

On 2021-01-05 15:33, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 5/01/21 9:28 am, Can Guo wrote:
>> On 2021-01-05 15:16, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 4/01/21 8:55 pm, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>>> On Mon 04 Jan 03:15 CST 2021, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22/12/20 3:49 pm, Ziqi Chen wrote:
>>>>>> As per specs, e.g, JESD220E chapter 7.2, while powering
>>>>>> off/on the ufs device, RST_N signal and REF_CLK signal
>>>>>> should be between VSS(Ground) and VCCQ/VCCQ2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To flexibly control device reset line, refactor the function
>>>>>> ufschd_vops_device_reset(sturct ufs_hba *hba) to ufshcd_
>>>>>> vops_device_reset(sturct ufs_hba *hba, bool asserted). The
>>>>>> new parameter "bool asserted" is used to separate device reset
>>>>>> line pulling down from pulling up.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch assumes the power is controlled by voltage regulators,
>>>>> but
>>>>> for us
>>>>> it is controlled by firmware (ACPI), so it is not correct to change
>>>>> RST_n
>>>>> for all host controllers as you are doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also we might need to use a firmware interface for device reset, in
>>>>> which
>>>>> case the 'asserted' value doe not make sense.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that the entire flip-flop-the-reset is a single
>>>> firmware
>>>> operation in your case?
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>>                         If you look at the Mediatek driver, the
>>>> implementation of ufs_mtk_device_reset_ctrl() is a jump to firmware.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But perhaps "asserted" isn't the appropriate English word for saying
>>>> "the reset is in the resetting state"?
>>>>
>>>> I just wanted to avoid the use of "high"/"lo" as if you look at the
>>>> Mediatek code they pass the expected line-level to the firmware,
>>>> while
>>>> in the Qualcomm code we pass the logical state to the GPIO code
>>>> which is
>>>> setup up as "active low" and thereby flip the meaning before hitting
>>>> the
>>>> pad.
>>>>
>>>>> Can we leave the device reset callback alone, and instead introduce
>>>>> a new
>>>>> variant operation for setting RST_n to match voltage regulator
>>>>> power
>>>>> changes?
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't this new function just have to look like the proposed
>>>> patches?
>>>> In which case for existing platforms we'd have both?
>>>>
>>>> How would you implement this, or would you simply skip implementing
>>>> this?
>>>
>>> Functionally, doing a device reset is not the same as adjusting
>>> signal
>>> levels to meet power up/off ramp requirements.  However, the issue is
>>> that
>>> we do not use regulators, so the power is not necessarily being
>>> changed at
>>> those points, and we definitely do not want to reset instead of
>>> entering
>>> DeepSleep for example.
>>>
>>> Off the top of my head, I imagine something like a callback called
>>> ufshcd_vops_prepare_power_ramp(hba, bool on) which is called only if
>>> hba->vreg_info->vcc is not NULL.
>>
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> I don't see you have the vops device_reset() implemented anywhere in
>> current code base, how is this change impacting you? Do I miss
>> anything
>> or are you planning to push a change which implements device_reset()
>> soon?
>
> At some point, yes.

OK, then we don't even have to add a new vops, just go back to version
#1 to
use ufshcd_vops_suspend() to control the device_reset. We took the hard
way
because we wanted to fix it for all users.