On Fri, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 21 November 2014 at 22:04, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ulf,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
Sure
If the first card is sd2.0 since startup, dw_mci_switch_voltage will not be called,
That can't be right. mmc_power_up() should trigger
dw_mci_switch_voltage() to be invoked.
Hmmm, I think you're right. Addy: can you double check if it's only
the 2nd card for you? I was thinking that if a regulator is currently
3.3V and you request 2.7 - 3.3V the regulator framework will treat
that as a noop. ...but that definitely doesn't appear to be the case.
When I boot up the first time even with no SD card plugged in, I see
this at bootup:
[ 3.042234] vccio_sd: 1800 <--> 3300 mV at 3300 mV
...showing that it started at 3.3V. Then I see:
$ grep "" /sys/class/regulator/regulator.16/{name,microvolts}
/sys/class/regulator/regulator.16/name:vccio_sd
/sys/class/regulator/regulator.16/microvolts:2700000
...so it is certainly getting changed even with no card plugged in.
BTW: I don't actually have one of these failing cards--all of mine
work. Addy, do you know the make and model of the card you have that
fails?
Just as a bit of a followup, I did some more digging...
1. It looks as if we now have a bit of "opposite" logic for vmmc vs.
vqmmc. In mmc_power_up() I see that it sets the initial voltage as:
host->ios.vdd = fls(ocr) - 1;
That's because we would like to supports as many cards as possible.
The policy is based upon that some cards may not support lower
voltages, but most will support higher.
That actually means that we're going to pick the maximum voltage for
vmmc (of the supported voltages). For vqmmc dw_mmc is using the
regulator framework which (as described in my previous message) will
pick the minimum.
Correct. I have thought this has been inside spec and choosing the
lower value would be preferred to lower power consumption. Maybe we
needs to re-visit this one more time.
Here are some of the interesting sections in the eMMC spec:
10.3.3 Power supply Voltages
"The VCCQ must be defined at equal to or less than VCC".
10.5 Bus signal levels
Push-pull mode:
Voh = 0.75 * VCCQ. (Do note, its VCCQ not VCC).
Summary eMMC: VCCQ must be less and VCC, we should be inside spec.
>From SD spec:
6.6.1 Threshold Level for High Voltage Range
Voh = 0.75 * VDD.
In worst case scenario, VDD = 3.6V and VIO = 2.7V. That gives as the
factor of 0.75, thus we are inside spec but without margins.
* From eMMC4.5 spec:
1. (VDDF)vcc: Supply voltage for flash memory, which is 2.7v -- 3.3v
2. (VDD)vccq: Supply voltage for memory controller, which is 1.7v --
1.95v and 2,7v -- 3.6v
* And from RK3288 datasheet:
Digtial GPIO Power(SDMMC0_VDD --> vccq) is 3.0v -- 3.6v and 1.62v - 1.98v
So I think:
3.3v: (2.7v < vccq < 3.6v) && (3.0v < vccq < 3.6v) ==> (3.0v < vccq
< 3.6v)
1.8v: (1.7v < vccq < 1.95v) && (1.62v < vccq < 1.98v) ==> (1.7v < vccq
< 1.95v)
and (2.7v < vcc < 3.3v)
* And according to our hardware engineer:
All of supply voltage must have +/- 10% cushion.
* And we have found in some worse card that there is 200mv voltage
collapse when these card is insert.
So I think the best resolution is that vcc and vccq is configurable int
dt table.
2. Several people I've talked to have expressed concerns that our
minimum value is 2.7V. Apparently that's really on the edge and makes
EEs a little nervous. The quick sample of cards sitting on my desk
shows that they seem to claim 0x00ff8000, which doesn't include 2.7V.
0x00ff8000 states what values of VDD levels the device supports. Not VIO.
Both of the above make me feel like dw_mmc should try its best to pick
a value for vqmmc that is closest to the value of vmmc (and >= 2.7V).
That also happens to make us work exactly like hosts where vmmc and
vqmmc are supplied by the same supply.
I do see your point. And I agree that it would be nice to achieve
something like this.
The question is how to do this. For sure, we need to involve the mmc
core to handle this correctly.
Kind regards
Uffe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
