| Message ID | 2c459196c6867e325f9386ec0559efea464cfdd6.1718213918.git.limings@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | eMMC RST_N support on BlueField-2 SoC | expand |
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 00:53, Liming Sun <limings@nvidia.com> wrote: > > The eMMC RST_N register is implemented as secure register on > BlueField SoC and controlled by ATF. This commit sends SMC call > to ATF for the eMMC HW reset. Just to make sure I get this correctly. Asserting the eMMC reset line is managed through a secure register? Or is this about resetting the eMMC controller? No matter what, it looks to me that it should be implemented as a reset provider. Kind regards Uffe > > Reviewed-by: David Thompson <davthompson@nvidia.com> > Signed-off-by: Liming Sun <limings@nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c > index 4747e5698f48..24e0b604b405 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ > * Copyright (C) 2018 Mellanox Technologies. > */ > > +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h> > #include <linux/bitfield.h> > #include <linux/bitops.h> > #include <linux/mmc/host.h> > @@ -20,6 +21,9 @@ > #define BLUEFIELD_UHS_REG_EXT_SAMPLE 2 > #define BLUEFIELD_UHS_REG_EXT_DRIVE 4 > > +/* SMC call for RST_N */ > +#define BLUEFIELD_SMC_SET_EMMC_RST_N 0x82000007 > + > static void dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios(struct dw_mci *host, struct mmc_ios *ios) > { > u32 reg; > @@ -34,8 +38,20 @@ static void dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios(struct dw_mci *host, struct mmc_ios *ios) > mci_writel(host, UHS_REG_EXT, reg); > } > > +static void dw_mci_bluefield_hw_reset(struct dw_mci *host) > +{ > + struct arm_smccc_res res = { 0 }; > + > + arm_smccc_smc(BLUEFIELD_SMC_SET_EMMC_RST_N, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > + &res); > + > + if (res.a0) > + pr_err("RST_N failed.\n"); > +} > + > static const struct dw_mci_drv_data bluefield_drv_data = { > - .set_ios = dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios > + .set_ios = dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios, > + .hw_reset = dw_mci_bluefield_hw_reset > }; > > static const struct of_device_id dw_mci_bluefield_match[] = { > -- > 2.30.1 >
Thanks, Uffe. Please see some comments/questions below. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 10:22 AM > To: Liming Sun <limings@nvidia.com> > Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>; David Thompson > <davthompson@nvidia.com>; linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org; linux- > kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] dw_mmc-bluefield: add hw_reset() support > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 00:53, Liming Sun <limings@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > The eMMC RST_N register is implemented as secure register on > > BlueField SoC and controlled by ATF. This commit sends SMC call > > to ATF for the eMMC HW reset. > > Just to make sure I get this correctly. Asserting the eMMC reset line > is managed through a secure register? Or is this about resetting the > eMMC controller? Yes, asserting the eMMC reset line (RST_N) is managed through a secure register. It's the same register but implemented as secure and can only be written in ATF. > > No matter what, it looks to me that it should be implemented as a > reset provider. Do you mean that ' hw_reset()' should implement the whole function instead of just the toggling the RST_N? > > Kind regards > Uffe > > > > > Reviewed-by: David Thompson <davthompson@nvidia.com> > > Signed-off-by: Liming Sun <limings@nvidia.com> > > --- > > drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c > b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c > > index 4747e5698f48..24e0b604b405 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c > > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c > > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ > > * Copyright (C) 2018 Mellanox Technologies. > > */ > > > > +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h> > > #include <linux/bitfield.h> > > #include <linux/bitops.h> > > #include <linux/mmc/host.h> > > @@ -20,6 +21,9 @@ > > #define BLUEFIELD_UHS_REG_EXT_SAMPLE 2 > > #define BLUEFIELD_UHS_REG_EXT_DRIVE 4 > > > > +/* SMC call for RST_N */ > > +#define BLUEFIELD_SMC_SET_EMMC_RST_N 0x82000007 > > + > > static void dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios(struct dw_mci *host, struct mmc_ios > *ios) > > { > > u32 reg; > > @@ -34,8 +38,20 @@ static void dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios(struct dw_mci > *host, struct mmc_ios *ios) > > mci_writel(host, UHS_REG_EXT, reg); > > } > > > > +static void dw_mci_bluefield_hw_reset(struct dw_mci *host) > > +{ > > + struct arm_smccc_res res = { 0 }; > > + > > + arm_smccc_smc(BLUEFIELD_SMC_SET_EMMC_RST_N, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 0, 0, > > + &res); > > + > > + if (res.a0) > > + pr_err("RST_N failed.\n"); > > +} > > + > > static const struct dw_mci_drv_data bluefield_drv_data = { > > - .set_ios = dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios > > + .set_ios = dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios, > > + .hw_reset = dw_mci_bluefield_hw_reset > > }; > > > > static const struct of_device_id dw_mci_bluefield_match[] = { > > -- > > 2.30.1 > >
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 21:13, Liming Sun <limings@nvidia.com> wrote: > > Thanks, Uffe. Please see some comments/questions below. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 10:22 AM > > To: Liming Sun <limings@nvidia.com> > > Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>; David Thompson > > <davthompson@nvidia.com>; linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org; linux- > > kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] dw_mmc-bluefield: add hw_reset() support > > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 00:53, Liming Sun <limings@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > > The eMMC RST_N register is implemented as secure register on > > > BlueField SoC and controlled by ATF. This commit sends SMC call > > > to ATF for the eMMC HW reset. > > > > Just to make sure I get this correctly. Asserting the eMMC reset line > > is managed through a secure register? Or is this about resetting the > > eMMC controller? > > Yes, asserting the eMMC reset line (RST_N) is managed through a secure register. > It's the same register but implemented as secure and can only be written in ATF. Okay, thanks for clarifying! > > > > > No matter what, it looks to me that it should be implemented as a > > reset provider. > > Do you mean that ' hw_reset()' should implement the whole function instead of just the toggling the RST_N? Sorry, for being very unclear from my side! I was thinking of modelling it as a GPIO pin that we can assert/deassert to manage the reset. However, after a second thought, it looks to me that it would be unnecessarily complicated. That said, I decided to apply patch 1 and patch 2, as is. While applying I took the liberty of clarifying the commit messages a bit, please let me know if it doesn't look okay to you. Kind regards Uffe > > > > > Kind regards > > Uffe > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: David Thompson <davthompson@nvidia.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Liming Sun <limings@nvidia.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c > > b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c > > > index 4747e5698f48..24e0b604b405 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c > > > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c > > > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ > > > * Copyright (C) 2018 Mellanox Technologies. > > > */ > > > > > > +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h> > > > #include <linux/bitfield.h> > > > #include <linux/bitops.h> > > > #include <linux/mmc/host.h> > > > @@ -20,6 +21,9 @@ > > > #define BLUEFIELD_UHS_REG_EXT_SAMPLE 2 > > > #define BLUEFIELD_UHS_REG_EXT_DRIVE 4 > > > > > > +/* SMC call for RST_N */ > > > +#define BLUEFIELD_SMC_SET_EMMC_RST_N 0x82000007 > > > + > > > static void dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios(struct dw_mci *host, struct mmc_ios > > *ios) > > > { > > > u32 reg; > > > @@ -34,8 +38,20 @@ static void dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios(struct dw_mci > > *host, struct mmc_ios *ios) > > > mci_writel(host, UHS_REG_EXT, reg); > > > } > > > > > > +static void dw_mci_bluefield_hw_reset(struct dw_mci *host) > > > +{ > > > + struct arm_smccc_res res = { 0 }; > > > + > > > + arm_smccc_smc(BLUEFIELD_SMC_SET_EMMC_RST_N, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > > 0, 0, > > > + &res); > > > + > > > + if (res.a0) > > > + pr_err("RST_N failed.\n"); > > > +} > > > + > > > static const struct dw_mci_drv_data bluefield_drv_data = { > > > - .set_ios = dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios > > > + .set_ios = dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios, > > > + .hw_reset = dw_mci_bluefield_hw_reset > > > }; > > > > > > static const struct of_device_id dw_mci_bluefield_match[] = { > > > -- > > > 2.30.1 > > >
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c index 4747e5698f48..24e0b604b405 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-bluefield.c @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ * Copyright (C) 2018 Mellanox Technologies. */ +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h> #include <linux/bitfield.h> #include <linux/bitops.h> #include <linux/mmc/host.h> @@ -20,6 +21,9 @@ #define BLUEFIELD_UHS_REG_EXT_SAMPLE 2 #define BLUEFIELD_UHS_REG_EXT_DRIVE 4 +/* SMC call for RST_N */ +#define BLUEFIELD_SMC_SET_EMMC_RST_N 0x82000007 + static void dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios(struct dw_mci *host, struct mmc_ios *ios) { u32 reg; @@ -34,8 +38,20 @@ static void dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios(struct dw_mci *host, struct mmc_ios *ios) mci_writel(host, UHS_REG_EXT, reg); } +static void dw_mci_bluefield_hw_reset(struct dw_mci *host) +{ + struct arm_smccc_res res = { 0 }; + + arm_smccc_smc(BLUEFIELD_SMC_SET_EMMC_RST_N, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, + &res); + + if (res.a0) + pr_err("RST_N failed.\n"); +} + static const struct dw_mci_drv_data bluefield_drv_data = { - .set_ios = dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios + .set_ios = dw_mci_bluefield_set_ios, + .hw_reset = dw_mci_bluefield_hw_reset }; static const struct of_device_id dw_mci_bluefield_match[] = {