Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] phy: qcom-qmp: Add SM8150 QMP UFS PHY support

[Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>]

On 08-10-19, 00:46, Jack Pham wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:40:17AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > SM8150 UFS PHY is v4 of QMP phy. Add support for V4 QMP phy register
> > defines and support for SM8150 QMP UFS PHY.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.h |  96 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 221 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c
> > index 34ff6434da8f..92d3048f2b36 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c
> > @@ -164,6 +164,11 @@ static const unsigned int sdm845_ufsphy_regs_layout[] = {
> >  	[QPHY_PCS_READY_STATUS]		= 0x160,
> >  };
> >  
> > +static const unsigned int sm8150_ufsphy_regs_layout[] = {
> > +	[QPHY_START_CTRL]		= 0x00,
> > +	[QPHY_PCS_READY_STATUS]		= 0x180,
> > +};
> > +
> >  static const struct qmp_phy_init_tbl msm8996_pcie_serdes_tbl[] = {
> >  	QMP_PHY_INIT_CFG(QSERDES_COM_BIAS_EN_CLKBUFLR_EN, 0x1c),
> >  	QMP_PHY_INIT_CFG(QSERDES_COM_CLK_ENABLE1, 0x10),
> > @@ -878,6 +883,93 @@ static const struct qmp_phy_init_tbl msm8998_usb3_pcs_tbl[] = {
> >  	QMP_PHY_INIT_CFG(QPHY_V3_PCS_RXEQTRAINING_RUN_TIME, 0x13),
> >  };
> >  
> > +static const struct qmp_phy_init_tbl sm8150_ufsphy_serdes_tbl[] = {
> > +	QMP_PHY_INIT_CFG(QPHY_POWER_DOWN_CONTROL, 0x01),
> > +	QMP_PHY_INIT_CFG(QSERDES_COM_V4_SYSCLK_EN_SEL, 0xd9),
> 
> QSERDES_V4_COM? See below.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.h b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.h
> > index 335ea5d7ef40..0eefd8621669 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.h
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.h
> > @@ -313,4 +313,100 @@
> >  #define QPHY_V3_PCS_MISC_OSC_DTCT_MODE2_CONFIG4		0x5c
> >  #define QPHY_V3_PCS_MISC_OSC_DTCT_MODE2_CONFIG5		0x60
> >  
> > +/* Only for QMP V4 PHY - QSERDES COM registers */
> > +#define QSERDES_COM_V4_SYSCLK_EN_SEL			0x094
> 
> Should these rather be prefixed as QSERDES_V4_COM? There are already
> QSERDES_V3_COM_* in this header so the convention appears to be
> Q{SERDES,PHY}_VX_{COM,TX,RX,PCS}.

Yup, I seem to have missed that (Marc also pointed out)

> > +#define QSERDES_COM_V4_HSCLK_SEL			0x158
> > +#define QSERDES_COM_V4_HSCLK_HS_SWITCH_SEL		0x15C
> > +#define QSERDES_COM_V4_LOCK_CMP_EN			0x0A4
> > +#define QSERDES_COM_V4_VCO_TUNE_MAP			0x10C
> 
> Nit: sort in ascending offset order, and make the hex values lowercase?

Sure will do

> 
> <snip>
> 
> > +/* Only for QMP V4 PHY - PCS registers */
> > +#define QPHY_V4_PHY_START				0x000
> > +#define QPHY_V4_POWER_DOWN_CONTROL			0x004
> > +#define QPHY_V4_SW_RESET				0x008
> > +#define QPHY_V4_PCS_READY_STATUS			0x180
> > +#define QPHY_V4_LINECFG_DISABLE				0x148
> > +#define QPHY_V4_MULTI_LANE_CTRL1			0x1E0
> > +#define QPHY_V4_RX_SIGDET_CTRL2				0x158
> > +#define QPHY_V4_TX_LARGE_AMP_DRV_LVL			0x030
> > +#define QPHY_V4_TX_SMALL_AMP_DRV_LVL			0x038
> > +#define QPHY_V4_TX_MID_TERM_CTRL1			0x1D8
> > +#define QPHY_V4_DEBUG_BUS_CLKSEL			0x124
> > +#define QPHY_V4_PLL_CNTL				0x02C
> > +#define QPHY_V4_TIMER_20US_CORECLK_STEPS_MSB		0x00C
> > +#define QPHY_V4_TIMER_20US_CORECLK_STEPS_LSB		0x010
> > +#define QPHY_V4_TX_PWM_GEAR_BAND			0x160
> > +#define QPHY_V4_TX_HS_GEAR_BAND				0x168
> > +#define QPHY_V4_TX_HSGEAR_CAPABILITY			0x074
> > +#define QPHY_V4_RX_HSGEAR_CAPABILITY			0x0B4
> > +#define QPHY_V4_RX_MIN_HIBERN8_TIME			0x150
> > +#define QPHY_V4_BIST_FIXED_PAT_CTRL			0x060
> 
> Interesting. These offsets appear to be valid only for the UFS instance
> of the QMP PHY. For PCIe and USB the PCS layout is completely different.
> Wonder if we need to add _UFS_ to  the prefix to differentiate them? Or
> can this be deferred to when PCIe/USB PHY driver support for SM8150 gets
> added?

I didnt look at that yet. Are we sure that it is using V4 of the
instance?

-- 
~Vinod