From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E86C433E2 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 10:01:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85EA52074B for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 10:01:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726786AbgIPKBZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:01:25 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:25979 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726735AbgIPKBI (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:01:08 -0400 IronPort-SDR: vHJz5K+ZBv8hs8keMAPKafVwrpSZQn9iKs/fCgTu3yKEiWs9f7iVrHIRXTtdCMHQ3BeOwhFVLy 5ytbSjwzz/DQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9745"; a="160364657" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,432,1592895600"; d="scan'208";a="160364657" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Sep 2020 03:01:04 -0700 IronPort-SDR: luZr4p0iUmS6jSHCuQLN6dShhBsLeklsLj/YP4EgPrNwrzGdciC2nnU6Ja7cgN4FZqrKefv4i3 hAJTxEkM6xTA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,432,1592895600"; d="scan'208";a="319785131" Received: from ahunter-desktop.fi.intel.com (HELO [10.237.72.190]) ([10.237.72.190]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Sep 2020 03:01:02 -0700 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V3 12/21] mmc: sdhci: UHS-II support, add hooks for additional operations To: AKASHI Takahiro , Ben Chuang , ulf.hansson@linaro.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ben.chuang@genesyslogic.com.tw, greg.tu@genesyslogic.com.tw References: <20200710111054.29562-1-benchuanggli@gmail.com> <9fa17d60-a540-d0d8-7b2c-0016c3b5c532@intel.com> <20200916080558.GA2978867@laputa> From: Adrian Hunter Organization: Intel Finland Oy, Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki, Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4, Domiciled in Helsinki Message-ID: <6bf86b26-391a-0699-1818-d070357b9ddc@intel.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:00:35 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200916080558.GA2978867@laputa> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 16/09/20 11:05 am, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > Adrian, > > Your comments are scattered over various functions, and so > I would like to address them in separate replies. > > First, I'd like to discuss sdhci_[add|remove]_host(). > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 05:08:32PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: >> On 10/07/20 2:10 pm, Ben Chuang wrote: >>> From: Ben Chuang >>> >>> In this commit, UHS-II related operations will be called via a function >>> pointer array, sdhci_uhs2_ops, in order to make UHS-II support as >>> a kernel module. >>> This array will be initialized only if CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2 is enabled >>> and when the UHS-II module is loaded. Otherwise, all the functions >>> stay void. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ben Chuang >>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro >>> --- > > (snip) > >>> if (intmask & (SDHCI_INT_CARD_INSERT | SDHCI_INT_CARD_REMOVE)) { >>> u32 present = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_PRESENT_STATE) & >>> SDHCI_CARD_PRESENT; >>> @@ -4717,6 +4812,14 @@ int sdhci_setup_host(struct sdhci_host *host) >>> /* This may alter mmc->*_blk_* parameters */ >>> sdhci_allocate_bounce_buffer(host); >>> >>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2) && >>> + host->version >= SDHCI_SPEC_400 && >>> + sdhci_uhs2_ops.add_host) { >>> + ret = sdhci_uhs2_ops.add_host(host, host->caps1); >>> + if (ret) >>> + goto unreg; >>> + } >>> + >> >> I think you should look at creating uhs2_add_host() instead >> >>> return 0; >>> >>> unreg: >>> @@ -4738,6 +4841,8 @@ void sdhci_cleanup_host(struct sdhci_host *host) >>> { >>> struct mmc_host *mmc = host->mmc; >>> >>> + /* FIXME: Do we have to do some cleanup for UHS2 here? */ >>> + >>> if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) >>> regulator_disable(mmc->supply.vqmmc); >>> >>> @@ -4766,6 +4871,14 @@ int __sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) >>> mmc->cqe_ops = NULL; >>> } >>> >>> + if ((mmc->caps & MMC_CAP_UHS2) && !host->v4_mode) { >>> + /* host doesn't want to enable UHS2 support */ >>> + mmc->caps &= ~MMC_CAP_UHS2; >>> + mmc->flags &= ~MMC_UHS2_SUPPORT; >>> + >>> + /* FIXME: Do we have to do some cleanup here? */ >>> + } >>> + >>> host->complete_wq = alloc_workqueue("sdhci", flags, 0); >>> if (!host->complete_wq) >>> return -ENOMEM; >>> @@ -4812,6 +4925,9 @@ int __sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) >>> unled: >>> sdhci_led_unregister(host); >>> unirq: >>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2) && >>> + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host) >>> + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host(host, 0); >>> sdhci_do_reset(host, SDHCI_RESET_ALL); >>> sdhci_writel(host, 0, SDHCI_INT_ENABLE); >>> sdhci_writel(host, 0, SDHCI_SIGNAL_ENABLE); >>> @@ -4869,6 +4985,10 @@ void sdhci_remove_host(struct sdhci_host *host, int dead) >>> >>> sdhci_led_unregister(host); >>> >>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2) && >>> + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host) >>> + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host(host, dead); >>> + >> >> I think you should look at creating uhs2_remove_host() instead > > You suggest that we will have separate sdhci_uhs2_[add|remove]_host(), > but I don't think it's always convenient. > > UHS-II capable host will be set to call sdhci_uhs2_add_host() explicitly, > but we can't do that in case of pci and pltfm based drivers as they utilize > common helper functions, sdhci_pci_probe() and sdhci_pltfm_register(), > respectively. sdhci-pci has an add_host op sdhci_pltfm_init can be used instead of sdhci_pltfm_register > Therefore, we inevitably have to call sdhci_uhs2_add_host() there. > > If so, why should we distinguish sdhci_uhs2_add_host from sdhci_uhs_add_host? > I don't see any good reason. > Moreover, as a result, there exists a mixed usage of sdhci_ interfaces > and sdhci_uhs2_ interfaces in sdhci-pci-core.c and sdhci-pltfm.c. > > It sounds odd to me. It is already done that way for cqhci. > > -Takahiro Akashi > > >> >>> if (!dead) >>> sdhci_do_reset(host, SDHCI_RESET_ALL); >>> >>> >>