| Message ID | 20231208065902.11006-6-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | scsi: ufs: qcom: Code cleanups | expand |
On 12/8/2023 12:28 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > core_reset is optional, so there is no need to warn the user if it is not > available. > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c > index dc93b1c5ca74..d474de0739e4 100644 > --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c > +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c > @@ -296,10 +296,8 @@ static int ufs_qcom_host_reset(struct ufs_hba *hba) > struct ufs_qcom_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba); > bool reenable_intr; > > - if (!host->core_reset) { > - dev_warn(hba->dev, "%s: reset control not set\n", __func__); > + if (!host->core_reset) > return 0; > - } > > reenable_intr = hba->is_irq_enabled; > disable_irq(hba->irq); Hi Mani, I think core reset is not frequent. It happen during only probe ,error handler. core reset is needed in kernel to cleanup UFS phy and controller configuration before UFS HLOS operation starts as per HPG. Having existing warn print can be used to to debug or atleast know core_reset is missed in device tree to give indication complete reset hasn't been done and we could still be operating in bootloader configuration. Regards, Nitin
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 02:55:21PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote: > > > On 12/8/2023 12:28 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > core_reset is optional, so there is no need to warn the user if it is not > > available. > > > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 4 +--- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c > > index dc93b1c5ca74..d474de0739e4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c > > +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c > > @@ -296,10 +296,8 @@ static int ufs_qcom_host_reset(struct ufs_hba *hba) > > struct ufs_qcom_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba); > > bool reenable_intr; > > - if (!host->core_reset) { > > - dev_warn(hba->dev, "%s: reset control not set\n", __func__); > > + if (!host->core_reset) > > return 0; > > - } > > reenable_intr = hba->is_irq_enabled; > > disable_irq(hba->irq); > > > Hi Mani, > > I think core reset is not frequent. It happen during only probe ,error > handler. > > core reset is needed in kernel to cleanup UFS phy and controller > configuration before UFS HLOS operation starts as per HPG. > This sounds like core reset is not an optional property but a required one. I just checked the upstream DT files for all SoCs, and looks like pretty much all of them support core reset. Only MSM8996 doesn't have the reset property, but the reset is available in GCC. So we should be able to use it in dtsi. I also skimmed through the HPG and looks like core reset is not optional. Please confirm. - Mani > Having existing warn print can be used to to debug or atleast know > core_reset is missed in device tree to give indication complete reset hasn't > been done and we could still be operating in bootloader configuration. > > > Regards, > Nitin >
On 12/8/2023 3:58 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 02:55:21PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote: >> >> >> On 12/8/2023 12:28 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>> core_reset is optional, so there is no need to warn the user if it is not >>> available. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 4 +--- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c >>> index dc93b1c5ca74..d474de0739e4 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c >>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c >>> @@ -296,10 +296,8 @@ static int ufs_qcom_host_reset(struct ufs_hba *hba) >>> struct ufs_qcom_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba); >>> bool reenable_intr; >>> - if (!host->core_reset) { >>> - dev_warn(hba->dev, "%s: reset control not set\n", __func__); >>> + if (!host->core_reset) >>> return 0; >>> - } >>> reenable_intr = hba->is_irq_enabled; >>> disable_irq(hba->irq); >> >> >> Hi Mani, >> >> I think core reset is not frequent. It happen during only probe ,error >> handler. >> >> core reset is needed in kernel to cleanup UFS phy and controller >> configuration before UFS HLOS operation starts as per HPG. >> > > This sounds like core reset is not an optional property but a required one. I > just checked the upstream DT files for all SoCs, and looks like pretty much all > of them support core reset. > > Only MSM8996 doesn't have the reset property, but the reset is available in GCC. > So we should be able to use it in dtsi. > > I also skimmed through the HPG and looks like core reset is not optional. Please > confirm. > > - Mani Hi Mani, Yes Core_reset is part of HPG sequence and is needed. Regards, Nitin > >> Having existing warn print can be used to to debug or atleast know >> core_reset is missed in device tree to give indication complete reset hasn't >> been done and we could still be operating in bootloader configuration. >> >> >> Regards, >> Nitin >> >
On 12/8/2023 6:59 PM, Nitin Rawat wrote: > > > On 12/8/2023 3:58 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 02:55:21PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/8/2023 12:28 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>>> core_reset is optional, so there is no need to warn the user if it >>>> is not >>>> available. >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 4 +--- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c >>>> index dc93b1c5ca74..d474de0739e4 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c >>>> @@ -296,10 +296,8 @@ static int ufs_qcom_host_reset(struct ufs_hba >>>> *hba) >>>> struct ufs_qcom_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba); >>>> bool reenable_intr; >>>> - if (!host->core_reset) { >>>> - dev_warn(hba->dev, "%s: reset control not set\n", __func__); >>>> + if (!host->core_reset) >>>> return 0; >>>> - } >>>> reenable_intr = hba->is_irq_enabled; >>>> disable_irq(hba->irq); >>> >>> >>> Hi Mani, >>> >>> I think core reset is not frequent. It happen during only probe ,error >>> handler. >>> >>> core reset is needed in kernel to cleanup UFS phy and controller >>> configuration before UFS HLOS operation starts as per HPG. >>> >> >> This sounds like core reset is not an optional property but a required >> one. I >> just checked the upstream DT files for all SoCs, and looks like pretty >> much all >> of them support core reset. >> >> Only MSM8996 doesn't have the reset property, but the reset is >> available in GCC. >> So we should be able to use it in dtsi. >> >> I also skimmed through the HPG and looks like core reset is not >> optional. Please >> confirm. >> >> - Mani > > > Hi Mani, > > Yes Core_reset is part of HPG sequence and is needed. > > Regards, > Nitin Hi Mani, I see this patch series is merged . So planning to keep the warn message based on above discussion. Regards, Nitin > > >> >>> Having existing warn print can be used to to debug or atleast know >>> core_reset is missed in device tree to give indication complete reset >>> hasn't >>> been done and we could still be operating in bootloader configuration. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Nitin >>> >> >
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 12:43:02PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote: > > > On 12/8/2023 6:59 PM, Nitin Rawat wrote: > > > > > > On 12/8/2023 3:58 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 02:55:21PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/8/2023 12:28 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > > core_reset is optional, so there is no need to warn the user > > > > > if it is not > > > > > available. > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 4 +--- > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c > > > > > index dc93b1c5ca74..d474de0739e4 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c > > > > > @@ -296,10 +296,8 @@ static int ufs_qcom_host_reset(struct > > > > > ufs_hba *hba) > > > > > struct ufs_qcom_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba); > > > > > bool reenable_intr; > > > > > - if (!host->core_reset) { > > > > > - dev_warn(hba->dev, "%s: reset control not set\n", __func__); > > > > > + if (!host->core_reset) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > - } > > > > > reenable_intr = hba->is_irq_enabled; > > > > > disable_irq(hba->irq); > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mani, > > > > > > > > I think core reset is not frequent. It happen during only probe ,error > > > > handler. > > > > > > > > core reset is needed in kernel to cleanup UFS phy and controller > > > > configuration before UFS HLOS operation starts as per HPG. > > > > > > > > > > This sounds like core reset is not an optional property but a > > > required one. I > > > just checked the upstream DT files for all SoCs, and looks like > > > pretty much all > > > of them support core reset. > > > > > > Only MSM8996 doesn't have the reset property, but the reset is > > > available in GCC. > > > So we should be able to use it in dtsi. > > > > > > I also skimmed through the HPG and looks like core reset is not > > > optional. Please > > > confirm. > > > > > > - Mani > > > > > > Hi Mani, > > > > Yes Core_reset is part of HPG sequence and is needed. > > > > Regards, > > Nitin > > > Hi Mani, > > I see this patch series is merged . So planning to keep the warn message > based on above discussion. > No, you should not add that warning back. As per our discussion, we concluded that core_reset is not optional, so devm_reset_control_get_exclusive() should be used to acquire the reset. If the reset property is not present in DT, then ufs_qcom_init() will fail. This also means that we should fix the binding and DT of SoCs missing the reset property. - Mani > Regards, > Nitin > > > > > > > > > > > Having existing warn print can be used to to debug or atleast know > > > > core_reset is missed in device tree to give indication complete > > > > reset hasn't > > > > been done and we could still be operating in bootloader configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Nitin > > > > > > > > >
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c index dc93b1c5ca74..d474de0739e4 100644 --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c @@ -296,10 +296,8 @@ static int ufs_qcom_host_reset(struct ufs_hba *hba) struct ufs_qcom_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba); bool reenable_intr; - if (!host->core_reset) { - dev_warn(hba->dev, "%s: reset control not set\n", __func__); + if (!host->core_reset) return 0; - } reenable_intr = hba->is_irq_enabled; disable_irq(hba->irq);