Hi Matthias,
On 2018-06-26 06:35, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 07:10:13PM +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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
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.
---
diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
index 28187a89b850..bd4c9a78716f 100644
--- a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
+++ b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
...
+static int qca_send_vendor_cmd(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 cmd)
+{
+ struct hci_uart *hu = hci_get_drvdata(hdev);
+ struct qca_data *qca = hu->priv;
+ struct sk_buff *skb;
+
+ bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "sending command %02x to SoC", cmd);
+
+ skb = bt_skb_alloc(sizeof(cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!skb) {
+ bt_dev_err(hdev, "Failed to allocate memory for vendor packet");
As mentioned on v7, custom OOM messages should be avoided.
[Bala]: sry i might have missed it, will update.
static int qca_set_speed(struct hci_uart *hu, enum qca_speed_type
speed_type)
{
+ struct qca_serdev *qcadev;
unsigned int speed, qca_baudrate;
int ret;
@@ -971,6 +1054,13 @@ static int qca_set_speed(struct hci_uart *hu,
enum qca_speed_type speed_type)
return 0;
}
+ qcadev = serdev_device_get_drvdata(hu->serdev);
+ /* Disabling hardware flow control is preferred while
+ * sending change baud rate command to SoC.
+ */
Is it only preferred or must be?
[Bala]: must be. will update.
+ if (qcadev->btsoc_type == QCA_WCN3990)
+ hci_uart_set_flow_control(hu, true);
+
nit: consider doing this just before qca_set_baudrate(). It doesn't
make a difference but leaves it clearer what exactly needs to be
'protected' (analogy to locking).
[Bala] : will do it.
qca_baudrate = qca_get_baudrate_value(speed);
bt_dev_info(hu->hdev, "Set UART speed to %d", speed);
ret = qca_set_baudrate(hu->hdev, qca_baudrate);
@@ -980,8 +1070,10 @@ static int qca_set_speed(struct hci_uart *hu,
enum qca_speed_type speed_type)
}
host_set_baudrate(hu, speed);
+ if (qcadev->btsoc_type == QCA_WCN3990)
+ hci_uart_set_flow_control(hu, false);
static int qca_setup(struct hci_uart *hu)
@@ -989,10 +1081,11 @@ static int qca_setup(struct hci_uart *hu)
struct hci_dev *hdev = hu->hdev;
struct qca_data *qca = hu->priv;
unsigned int speed, qca_baudrate = QCA_BAUDRATE_115200;
+ struct qca_serdev *qcadev;
int ret;
int soc_ver = 0;
- bt_dev_info(hdev, "ROME setup");
+ qcadev = serdev_device_get_drvdata(hu->serdev);
/* Patch downloading has to be done without IBS mode */
clear_bit(STATE_IN_BAND_SLEEP_ENABLED, &qca->flags);
@@ -1000,6 +1093,35 @@ static int qca_setup(struct hci_uart *hu)
/* Setup initial baudrate */
qca_set_speed(hu, QCA_INIT_SPEED);
+ if (qcadev->btsoc_type == QCA_WCN3990) {
+ bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "setting up wcn3990");
+ hci_uart_set_flow_control(hu, true);
+ ret = qca_send_vendor_cmd(hdev, QCA_WCN3990_POWERON_PULSE);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ hci_uart_set_flow_control(hu, false);
+ serdev_device_close(hu->serdev);
+ ret = serdev_device_open(hu->serdev);
+ if (ret) {
+ bt_dev_err(hdev, "failed to open port");
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ msleep(100);
Is the sleep really related with _open() or is it rather that the
device needs to settle after the power on pulse? In the latter case
I'd suggest to do the sleep before _open(), if it doesn't make a
functional difference (makes the code a bit more self documenting).
+ /* Setup initial baudrate */
+ qca_set_speed(hu, QCA_INIT_SPEED);
+ hci_uart_set_flow_control(hu, false);
This is still a bit noisy with all the open/close and flow control
stuff. If I understand correctly this essentially switches the
controller on (or resets it?) and brings it (and the driver) into a
sane state. Would it make sense to move the above block into a
wcn3990_init/reset() or so?
[Bala]: It is very good idea, may be future chips also will flow same
functions with some initial setup changes.
will group these functions into a common functions.
--
Regards
Balakrishna.
--
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
