Re: [PATCH v10 7/7] Bluetooth: hci_qca: Add support for Qualcomm Bluetooth chip wcn3990

[Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 07:02:43PM +0530, Balakrishna Godavarthi wrote:
> Add support to set voltage/current of various regulators
> to power up/down Bluetooth chip wcn3990.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Balakrishna Godavarthi <bgodavar@codeaurora.org>
> ---
> changes in v10:
>     * added support to read regulator currents from dts.

I commented on this below

>     * added support to try to connect with chip if it fails to respond to initial commands
>     * updated review comments.
> 
> changes in v9:
>     * moved flow control to vendor and set_baudarte functions.
>     * removed parent regs.
> 
> changes in v8:
>     * closing qca buffer, if qca_power_setup fails
>     * chnaged ibs start timer function call location.
>     * updated review comments.
>   
> changes in v7:
>     * addressed review comments.
> 
> changes in v6:
>     * Hooked up qca_power to qca_serdev.
>     * renamed all the naming inconsistency functions with qca_*
>     * leveraged common code of ROME for wcn3990.
>     * created wrapper functions for re-usable blocks.
>     * updated function of _*regulator_enable and _*regualtor_disable.  
>     * removed redundant comments and functions.
>     * addressed review comments.
> 
> Changes in v5:
>     * updated regulator vddpa min_uV to 1304000.
>       * addressed review comments.
>  
> Changes in v4:
>     * Segregated the changes of btqca from hci_qca
>     * rebased all changes on top of bluetooth-next.
>     * addressed review comments.
> 
> ---
>  drivers/bluetooth/btqca.h   |   4 +
>  drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c | 481 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 439 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.h b/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.h
> index a9c2779f3e07..9e2bbcf5c002 100644
> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.h
> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.h
> @@ -37,6 +37,10 @@
>  #define EDL_TAG_ID_HCI			(17)
>  #define EDL_TAG_ID_DEEP_SLEEP		(27)
>  
> +#define QCA_WCN3990_POWERON_PULSE	0xFC
> +#define QCA_WCN3990_POWEROFF_PULSE	0xC0
> +#define QCA_WCN3990_FORCE_BOOT_PULSE	0xC0

This is the same value as QCA_WCN3990_POWEROFF_PULSE. From the usage
it seems it's really just a power off pulse, so let's stick to this
name, instead of having two names for the same thing.

> +static int qca_send_vendor_pulse(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 cmd)

My understanding from earlier discussion is that these pulses are
limited to power on/off. If that is correct this should probably be
called qca_send_power_pulse().

> +{
> +	struct hci_uart *hu = hci_get_drvdata(hdev);
> +	struct qca_data *qca = hu->priv;
> +	struct sk_buff *skb;
> +
> +	/* These vendor pulses are single byte command which are sent
> +	 * at required baudrate to WCN3990. on WCN3990, we have an external

s/on/On/

> +	 * circuit at Tx pin which decodes the pulse sent at specific baudrate.
> +	 * For example, as WCN3990 supports RF COEX frequency for both Wi-Fi/BT
> +	 * and also, we use the same power inputs to turn ON and OFF for

nit: not sure how much value is added by (sometimes) using upper case
for certain things (ON, OFF, COLD, HOST, ...).

> +	 * Wi-Fi/BT. Powering up the power sources will not enable BT, until
> +	 * we send a POWER ON pulse at 115200. This algorithm will help to

115200 what? bps I guess.

> +static int qca_wcn3990_init(struct hci_uart *hu, u32 *soc_ver)
> +{
> +	struct hci_dev *hdev = hu->hdev;
> +	int i, ret = 1;

Initialization not necessary, more details below.

> +
> +	/* WCN3990 is a discrete Bluetooth chip connected to APPS processor.

APPS is a Qualcomm specific term, and some QCA docs also call it
APSS. Just say 'SoC' which is universally understood.

> +	 * sometimes we will face communication synchronization issues,
> +	 * like reading version command timeouts. In which HCI_SETUP fails,
> +	 * to overcome these issues, we try to communicate by performing an
> +	 * COLD power OFF and ON.
> +	 */
> +	for (i = 1; i <= 10 && ret; i++) {

Is it really that bad that more than say 3 iterations might be needed?

Common practice is to start loops with index 0.

The check for ret is not needed. All jumps to 'regs_off' are done
when an error is detected. The loop is left when 'ret == 0' at the
bottom.

> +		/* This helper will turn ON chip if it is powered off.
> +		 * if the chip is already powered ON, function call will
> +		 * return zero.
> +		 */

Comments are great when they add value, IMO this one doesn't and just
adds distraction. Most readers will assume that after
qca_power_setup(hu, true) the chip is powered on, regardless of the
previous power state.

> +		ret = qca_power_setup(hu, true);
> +		if (ret)
> +			goto regs_off;
> +
> +		/* Forcefully enable wcn3990 to enter in to boot mode. */

nit: Sometimes the comments and logs name the chip wcn3990, others
WCN3990. Personally I don't care which spelling is used, but please be
consistent.

> +		host_set_baudrate(hu, 2400);
> +		ret = qca_send_vendor_pulse(hdev, QCA_WCN3990_FORCE_BOOT_PULSE);
> +		if (ret)
> +			goto regs_off;
> +
> +		qca_set_speed(hu, QCA_INIT_SPEED);
> +		ret = qca_send_vendor_pulse(hdev, QCA_WCN3990_POWERON_PULSE);
> +		if (ret)
> +			goto regs_off;
> +
> +		/* Wait for 100 ms for SoC to boot */
> +		msleep(100);
> +
> +		/* Now the device is in ready state to communicate with host.
> +		 * To sync HOST with device we need to reopen port.
> +		 * Without this, we will have RTS and CTS synchronization
> +		 * issues.
> +		 */
> +		serdev_device_close(hu->serdev);
> +		ret = serdev_device_open(hu->serdev);
> +		if (ret) {
> +			bt_dev_err(hu->hdev, "failed to open port");
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
> +		hci_uart_set_flow_control(hu, false);
> +		ret = qca_read_soc_version(hdev, soc_ver);
> +		if (ret < 0 || soc_ver == 0)
> +			bt_dev_err(hdev, "Failed to get version:%d", ret);

The check for soc_ver is/should be done in qca_read_soc_version(),
same for the error log.

> +		if (!ret)
> +			break;
> +
> +regs_off:
> +		bt_dev_err(hdev, "retrying to establish communication: %d", i);

Use i + 1 if starting the loop at 0.

> +static const struct qca_vreg_data qca_soc_data = {
> +	.soc_type = QCA_WCN3990,
> +	.vregs = (struct qca_vreg []) {
> +		{ "vddio",   1800000, 1800000,  15000  },
> +		{ "vddxo",   1800000, 1800000,  80000  },
> +		{ "vddrf",   1304000, 1304000,  300000 },
> +		{ "vddch0",  3000000, 3312000,  450000 },
> +	},

The currents of 300mA and 450mA seem high for Bluetooth, I'm not an
expert in this area though, they might be reasonable peak currents for
certain use cases.

> +static int qca_power_shutdown(struct hci_dev *hdev)
> +{
> +	struct hci_uart *hu = hci_get_drvdata(hdev);
> +
> +	host_set_baudrate(hu, 2400);
> +	qca_send_vendor_pulse(hdev, QCA_WCN3990_POWEROFF_PULSE);
> +	return qca_power_setup(hu, false);
> +}

The return value changed from void to int, but nobody ever checks it ...

> +static void qca_regulator_get_current(struct device *dev,
> +				      struct qca_vreg *vregs)
> +{
> +	char prop_name[32]; /* 32 is max size of property name */
> +
> +	/* We have different platforms where the load value is controlled
> +	 * via PMIC controllers. In such cases load required to power ON
> +	 * Bluetooth chips are defined in the PMIC. We have option to set
> +	 * operation mode like high or low power modes.
> +	 * We do have some platforms where driver need to enable the load for
> +	 * WCN3990. Based on the current property value defined for the
> +	 * regulators, driver will decide the regulator output load.
> +	 * If the current property for the regulator is defined in the dts
> +	 * we will read from dts tree, else from the default load values.
> +	 */

Let's make sure we all really understand why this is needed. You
mentioned RPMh regulators earlier and said a special value of 1uA
would be needed to enable high power mode. Later when I pointed to the
RPMh regulator code you agreed that this special value wouldn't make
any difference.

Now the defaults are higher:

> +		{ "vddio",   1800000, 1800000,  15000  },
> +		{ "vddxo",   1800000, 1800000,  80000  },
> +		{ "vddrf",   1304000, 1304000,  300000 },
> +		{ "vddch0",  3000000, 3312000,  450000 },

What would supposedly go wrong if these values were passed to one of
the PMICs you are concerned about? Please be more specific than the
above comment.

> +	snprintf(prop_name, 32, "%s-current", vregs->name);
> +	BT_DBG("Looking up %s from device tree\n", prop_name);

'\n' not needed with BT_DBG()

> +
> +	if (device_property_read_bool(dev, prop_name))
> +		device_property_read_u32(dev, prop_name, &vregs->load_uA);

Why device_property_read_bool()?

> +	BT_DBG("current %duA selected for regulator %s", vregs->load_uA,
> +		vregs->name);
> +}
> +
> +static int qca_init_regulators(struct qca_power *qca,
> +				const struct qca_vreg_data *data)
> +{
> +	int i, num_vregs;
> +	int load_uA;
> +
> +	num_vregs = data->num_vregs;
> +	qca->vreg_bulk = devm_kzalloc(qca->dev, num_vregs *
> +				      sizeof(struct regulator_bulk_data),
> +				      GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!qca->vreg_bulk)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	qca->vreg_data = devm_kzalloc(qca->dev, sizeof(struct qca_vreg_data),
> +				      GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!qca->vreg_data)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	qca->vreg_data->num_vregs = data->num_vregs;
> +	qca->vreg_data->soc_type = data->soc_type;
> +
> +	qca->vreg_data->vregs = devm_kzalloc(qca->dev, num_vregs *
> +				      sizeof(struct qca_vreg_data),

sizeof(struct qca_vreg)

> +				      GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> +	if (!qca->vreg_data->vregs)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < num_vregs; i++) {
> +		/* copy regulator name, min voltage, max voltage */
> +		qca->vreg_data->vregs[i].name = data->vregs[i].name;
> +		qca->vreg_data->vregs[i].min_uV = data->vregs[i].min_uV;
> +		qca->vreg_data->vregs[i].max_uV = data->vregs[i].max_uV;
> +		load_uA = data->vregs[i].load_uA;
> +		qca->vreg_data->vregs[i].load_uA = load_uA;

memcpy(&qca->vreg_data->vregs[i], &data->vregs[i]); ?

Or do it outside of the loop for all regulators at once.

>  static int qca_serdev_probe(struct serdev_device *serdev)
>  {
>  	struct qca_serdev *qcadev;
> +	const struct qca_vreg_data *data;
>  	int err;
>  
>  	qcadev = devm_kzalloc(&serdev->dev, sizeof(*qcadev), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -1069,47 +1418,87 @@ static int qca_serdev_probe(struct serdev_device *serdev)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	qcadev->serdev_hu.serdev = serdev;
> +	data = of_device_get_match_data(&serdev->dev);
>  	serdev_device_set_drvdata(serdev, qcadev);
> +	if (data && data->soc_type == QCA_WCN3990) {
> +		qcadev->btsoc_type = QCA_WCN3990;
> +		qcadev->bt_power = devm_kzalloc(&serdev->dev,
> +						sizeof(struct qca_power),
> +						GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (!qcadev->bt_power)
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +		qcadev->bt_power->dev = &serdev->dev;
> +		err = qca_init_regulators(qcadev->bt_power, data);
> +		if (err) {
> +			BT_ERR("Failed to init regulators:%d", err);
> +			goto out;
> +		}
>  
> -	qcadev->bt_en = devm_gpiod_get(&serdev->dev, "enable",
> -				       GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
> -	if (IS_ERR(qcadev->bt_en)) {
> -		dev_err(&serdev->dev, "failed to acquire enable gpio\n");
> -		return PTR_ERR(qcadev->bt_en);
> -	}
> +		qcadev->bt_power->vregs_on = false;
>  
> -	qcadev->susclk = devm_clk_get(&serdev->dev, NULL);
> -	if (IS_ERR(qcadev->susclk)) {
> -		dev_err(&serdev->dev, "failed to acquire clk\n");
> -		return PTR_ERR(qcadev->susclk);
> -	}
> +		/* Read max speed supported by wcn3990 from dts
> +		 * tree. if max-speed property is not enabled in
> +		 * dts, QCA driver will use default operating speed
> +		 * from proto structure.
> +		 */

The comment doesn't add much value.

> +		device_property_read_u32(&serdev->dev, "max-speed",
> +					 &qcadev->oper_speed);
> +		if (!qcadev->oper_speed)
> +			BT_INFO("UART will pick default operating speed");

Not a change in this version, but BT_INFO seems a bit verbose, we
should avoid spamming the kernel log.