On 27.01.2014 11:19, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On 26 January 2014 18:26, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21.01.2014 19:34, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Hi,
On 20.01.2014 04:56, Olof Johansson wrote:
This patch enables support for power-on sequencing of SDIO peripherals
through DT.
In general, it's quite common that wifi modules and other similar
peripherals have several signals in addition to the SDIO interface that
needs wiggling before the module will power on. It's common to have a
reference clock, one or several power rails and one or several lines
for reset/enable type functions.
The binding as written today introduces a number of reset gpios,
a regulator and a clock specifier. The code will handle up to 2 gpio
reset lines, but it's trivial to increase to more than that if needed
at some point.
Implementation-wise, the MMC core has been changed to handle this during
host power up, before the host interface is powered on. I have not yet
implemented the power-down side, I wanted people to have a chance for
reporting back w.r.t. issues (or comments on the bindings) first.
I have not tested the regulator portion, since the system and module
I'm working on doesn't need one (Samsung Chromebook with Marvell
8797-based wifi). Testing of those portions (and reporting back) would
be appreciated.
While I fully agree that this is an important problem that needs to be
solved, I really don't think this is the right way, because:
a) power-up sequence is really specific to the MMC device and often it's
not simply a matter of switching on one regulator or one clock, e.g.
specific time constraints need to be met.
b) you can have WLAN chips in which SDIO is just one of the options to
use as host interface, which may be also HSIC, I2C or UART. Really. See
[1].
c) this is leaking device specific details to generic host code, which
isn't really elegant.
Now, to make this a bit more constructive, [2] is a solution that I came
up with (not perfect either), which simply adds a separate platform
device for the low level part of the chip. I believe this is a better
solution because:
a) you can often see such WLAN/BT combo chip as a set of separate
devices, e.g. SDIO WLAN, UART BT and a simple PMIC or management IC,
which provides power/reset control, out of band signalling and etc. for
the first two, so it isn't that bad to have a separate device node for
the last one,
b) you have full freedom of defining your DT binding with whatever data
you need, any number of clocks, regulators, GPIOs and even out of band
interrupts (IMHO the most important one).
c) you can implement power-on, power-off sequences as needed for your
particular device,
d) you have full separation of device-specific data from MMC core (or
any other subsystem simply used as a way to perform I/O to the chip).
Now what's missing there is a way to signal the MMC core or any other
transport that a device showed up and the controller should be woken up
out of standby and scan of the bus initialized. This could be done by
explicitly specifying the device as a subnode of the
MMC/UART/USB(HSIC)/I2C or whatever with a link (phandle) to the power
controller of the chip or the other way around - a link to the
MMC/UART/... controller from the power controller node.
I've looked a bit around MMC core code and got some basic idea how things
look. I will definitely need some guidance, or at least some opinions, from
MMC guys, as some MMC core changes are unavoidable.
Now, the device-specific code is not really an issue, existing drivers
usually already have their ways of powering the chips on and off, based on
platform data. Everything needed here is to retrieve needed resources
(GPIOs, clocks, regulators) using DT, which should be trivial.
The worse part is the interaction between MMC and power controller driver
(the platform driver part of WLAN driver, if you look at brcmfmac as an
example). I believe that we need following things:
a) A way to tell the MMC controller that there is no card detection
mechanism available on given slot and it also should not be polling the slot
to check card presence. Something like a "manual card detect" that would be
triggered by another kernel entity that controls whether the MMC device is
present (i.e. WLAN driver). We already have "broken-cd" property, but it
only implies the former, wasting time on needless polling.
There is already a host capability that I think we could use to handle
this. MMC_CAP_NONREMOVABLE, the corresponding DT binding string is
"non-removable", and it may be set per host device.
Using this cap means the mmc_rescan process that runs to detect new
cards, will only be executed once and during boot. So, we need to make
sure all resources and powers are provided to the card at this point.
Otherwise the card will not be detected.
I don't quite like this requirement, especially if you consider
multi-platform kernels where a lot of drivers is going to be provided as
modules. WLAN drivers are especially good candidates. This means that
even if the card is powered off at boot-up, if user (or init system)
loads appropriate module, which powers the chip on, MMC core must be
able to notice this.
In the SDIO case, to save power, the SDIO func driver may use runtime
PM to tell the mmc core power about whether the card needs to be
powered. Typically from the WLAN driver's probe() and "interface
up/down" the runtime PM reference for the SDIO func device, should be
adjusted with pm_runtime_get|put.
I need to think a bit more about the power management control flow here.
In case of such chips I'd tend to look at MMC merely as a host
interface, which as I said, might be only one of available options. I'm
not sure if it should be the host interface core that decides whether
the whole device should be powered off. However there might be a
solution that leverages SDIO func runtime PM, which wouldn't imply such
control flow. Let me reconsider this.
b) A mechanism to bind the power controller to used MMC slot. Something like
"mmc-bus = <&mmc2>;" property in device node of the power controller and a
function like of_find_mmc_controller_by_node(), which would be an MMC
counterpart of I2C's of_find_i2c_adapter_by_node(). To avoid races, it
should probably take a reference on MMC host that would have to be dropped
explicitly whenever it is not needed anymore.
I suppose an "MMC slot" can be translated to "MMC host"?
Right.
What I am trying to understand is how the mmc core (or if we push it
to be handled from the mmc host's .set_ios callback) shall be able to
tell the power controller driver to enable/disable it's resources.
Somehow we need the struct device available to handle that. Then I
guess operating on it using runtime PM would be a solution that would
be quite nice!?
As I wrote above, I'm not quite sure about this yet.
c) A method to notify the MMC subsystem that card presence has changed. We
already have something like this in drivers/mmc/core/slot-gpio.c, but used
for a simple GPIO-based card detection. If the main part of
mmc_gpio_cd_irqt() could be turned into an exported helper, e.g.
mmc_force_card_detect(host) then basically we would have everything needed.
I am not sure I understand why this is needed. I think it would be
more convenient to use MMC_CAP_NONREMOVABLE instead as stated earlier.
But please elaborate, I might have missed something.
See above. I'm not quite convinced that state of MMC interface should
determine power state of the chip. I can easily imagine a situation
where the MMC link is powered down (link power management) but the WLAN
chip keeps operation. Keep in mind that those are usually complete SoCs
that can keep processing network traffic autonomously and wake-up the
application processor whenever anything interesting happens using extra
out of bounds signalling, which might trigger re-enabling the MMC link.
Unfortunately, I don't have more time left for today to create patches and
test them, so for now, I'd like to hear opinion of MMC maintainers about
this approach. Do you find this acceptable?
By the way, it seems like slot-gpio.c could replace a lot of custom GPIO
card detection code used in MMC host drivers, e.g. sdhci-s3c. Is there any
reason why it couldn't?
I suppose most host driver's should convert to the slot-gpio API, it's
is just a matter of someone to send the patches. :-)
OK, great. I'll add conversion of sdhci-s3c to my queue then.
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
