On 12/20/2019 1:23 PM, Vinod Koul wrote: > On 20-12-19, 15:41, Can Guo wrote: >> On 2019-12-20 15:10, Vinod Koul wrote: >>> On 20-12-19, 14:00, Can Guo wrote: >> Hi Vinod >> >> We are just removing the no_pcs_sw_reset for 8150, right? Why is it >> possibly impacting 845 or older paltforms? >> >> In future, we will no longer need no_pcs_sw_reset for any newer QCOM UFS >> PHY designs, as it is only for 845 and older platforms. >> >> I am sure QPHY_SW_RESET will be within PHY's address space since 8150. >> Otherwise, it will be a regression in UFS PHY design. We had a lot of >> discussion about this on 845 years ago, then design team decided to add >> it on later platforms, so I don't see a reason to remove it again. :) >> >> I am not sure about the other qmp phys, but so long as UFS PHY needs the >> reset, we need to keep it, as phy-qcom-qmp.c is a common driver. I am >> not sure if I get your point here. Please correct me I am wrong. > The argument here is that we are making this UFS specific and we do not > know if this will be true in future as QMP is a common phy, so adding a > separate flag helps to keep it independent and to be used in other > situations. > > Thanks We should just remove no_pcs_sw_reset and let existing code take care of PHY reset for UFS. QMP PHY reset for UFS was differently handled earlier compared to USB/PCie and relied on core for PHY reset. That is not the case with addition of PCS based sw_reset and this won't change in future. There is no need to have UFS specific flag in this driver. -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
