Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] scsi: ufs-qcom: Add reset control support for host controller

Vinod Koul
2019-12-19T14:52:16Z

On 19-12-19, 07:25, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 7:21 AM Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 19-12-19, 15:12, cang@codeaurora.org wrote:
> > > On 2019-12-18 12:12, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > On 18-12-19, 02:44, cang@codeaurora.org wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Aside of the phy settings, your DT needs some modifications too,
> > > seems you copied most of them from sdm845.
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/qcom/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=3834a2e92229ef26d30de28acb698b2b23d3e397
> > >
> > > <--snip-->
> > > > + ufs_mem_phy: phy@1d87000 {
> > > > + compatible = "qcom,sm8150-qmp-ufs-phy";
> > > > + reg = <0 0x01d87000 0 0x18c>;
> > >
> > > The size 0x18c is wrong, in the code you are even accessing registers
> > > whose offsets are beyond 0x18c, see
> > >
> > > #define QSERDES_V4_COM_BIN_VCOCAL_CMP_CODE1_MODE0 0x1ac
> > > #define QSERDES_V4_COM_BIN_VCOCAL_CMP_CODE2_MODE0 0x1b0
> > > #define QSERDES_V4_COM_BIN_VCOCAL_CMP_CODE1_MODE1 0x1b4
> > > #define QSERDES_V4_COM_BIN_VCOCAL_HSCLK_SEL 0x1bc
> > > #define QSERDES_V4_COM_BIN_VCOCAL_CMP_CODE2_MODE1 0x1b8
> > >
> > > FYI, the total size of serdes registers is 0x1c0.
> >
> > Yeah I will update it to 0x1c0
> >
> > >
> > > <--snip-->
> > > > + ufs_mem_phy_lanes: lanes@1d87400 {
> > > > + reg = <0 0x01d87400 0 0x108>,
> > > > + <0 0x01d87600 0 0x1e0>,
> > > > + <0 0x01d87c00 0 0x1dc>,
> > >
> > > Same as above, see
> > >
> > > #define QPHY_V4_MULTI_LANE_CTRL1 0x1e0
> > >
> > > FYI, the total size of PCS registers is 0x200
> > >
> > > > + <0 0x01d87800 0 0x108>,
> > > > + <0 0x01d87a00 0 0x1e0>;
> > > > + #phy-cells = <0>;
> > > > + };
> > > <--snip-->
> >
> > So I managed to fix it by configuring QPHY_SW_RESET in
> > qcom_qmp_phy_com_init() before invoking the configuration. That makes it
> > work for me. Will send patches shortly
>
> So, you are going to send some fixes to make sm8150 work. We also
> need the extended timeout for all platforms, yes? Who is going to
> send up the patch for the timeout? All of this should be -rc material
> since Can's change caused these issues to appear, and thus impact
> users, no?

yeah I have tested a timeout of 10ms and seems to look good for me on
sm8150 and sdm845. I will be sending the patches in few minutes :) and
yes the timeout should be marked to 5.5 fixes

Thanks
--
~Vinod