Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] phy: qcom-qmp: Enable pipe_clk before checking USB3 PHY_STATUS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Doug,


On 3/27/2018 9:56 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Manu
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Manu Gautam <mgautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> QMP PHY for USB mode requires pipe_clk for calibration and PLL lock
>> to take place. This clock is output from PHY to GCC clock_ctl and then
>> fed back to QMP PHY and is available from PHY only after PHY is reset
>> and initialized, hence it can't be enabled too early in initialization
>> sequence.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Manu Gautam <mgautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> So it's now new with this patch, but it's more obvious with this
> patch.  It seems like "UFS/PCIE" is kinda broken w/ respect to how it
> controls its clock.  Specifically:
>
> * If you init the PHY but don't power it on, then you "exit" the PHY:
> you'll disable/unprepare "pipe_clk" even though you never
> prepare/enabled it.
>
> * If you init the PHY, power it on, power it off, power it on, and
> exit the PHY: you'll leave the clock prepared one extra time.
>
> Specifically I'd expect: for UFS/PCIE the disable/unprepare should be
> symmetric with the enable/prepare and should be in "power off", not in
> exit.
>
> ...or did I miss something?
>
>
> Interestingly, your patch fixes this problem for USB3 (where init/exit
> are now symmetric), but leaves the problem there for UFS/PCIE.
>

Thanks for review.
One of the reason why pipe_clk is disabled as part of phy_exit is that
halt_check from clk_disable reports error if called after PHY has been
powered down or phy_exit.
I believe that warning should be ignored in qcom gcc-clock driver
(for applicable platforms) by using BRANCH_HALT_DELAY as halt_check
for pipe_clk and performing clk_disable from power_off for UFS/PCIE.

I can implement that as separate patch once dependent gcc driver
patch(es) gets in. Would that be ok?

-Manu

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux