Yuvaraj Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, August 29, 2013, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> >> Hi Seungwon,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, August 28, 2013, Yuvaraj Kumar C D wrote:
> >> >> Exynos5420 Mobile Storage Host controller has Security Management Unit
> >> >> (SMU) for channel 0 and channel 1 (mainly for eMMC).This patch configures
> >> >> SMU for exynos5420.
> >> >>
> >> >> This patch is on top of the below patch by Doug Anderson.
> >> >> mmc: dw_mmc: Add exynos resume_noirq callback to clear WAKEUP_INT
> >> >>
> >> >> changes since V2:
> >> >> 1.Droppped the bypass-smu quirk.
> >> >> 2.Changed the subject line for this patch
> >> >> add a quirk for SMU -> configure SMU in exynos5420
> >> >>
> >> >> changes since V1:
> >> >> 1.avoid code duplication by calling dw_mci_exynos_priv_init in
> >> >> resume path.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Yuvaraj Kumar C D <yuvaraj.cd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c
> >> >> index 19c845b..db28f10 100644
> >> >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c
> >> >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c
> >> >> @@ -35,6 +35,25 @@
> >> >> #define EXYNOS4210_FIXED_CIU_CLK_DIV 2
> >> >> #define EXYNOS4412_FIXED_CIU_CLK_DIV 4
> >> >>
> >> >> +/* Block number in eMMC */
> >> >> +#define DWMCI_BLOCK_NUM 0xFFFFFFFF
> >> >> +
> >> >> +#define SDMMC_EMMCP_BASE 0x1000
> >> >> +#define SDMMC_MPSECURITY (SDMMC_EMMCP_BASE + 0x0010)
> >> >> +#define SDMMC_MPSBEGIN0 (SDMMC_EMMCP_BASE + 0x0200)
> >> >> +#define SDMMC_MPSEND0 (SDMMC_EMMCP_BASE + 0x0204)
> >> >> +#define SDMMC_MPSCTRL0 (SDMMC_EMMCP_BASE + 0x020C)
> >> >> +
> >> >> +/* SMU control bits */
> >> >> +#define DWMCI_MPSCTRL_SECURE_READ_BIT BIT(7)
> >> >> +#define DWMCI_MPSCTRL_SECURE_WRITE_BIT BIT(6)
> >> >> +#define DWMCI_MPSCTRL_NON_SECURE_READ_BIT BIT(5)
> >> >> +#define DWMCI_MPSCTRL_NON_SECURE_WRITE_BIT BIT(4)
> >> >> +#define DWMCI_MPSCTRL_USE_FUSE_KEY BIT(3)
> >> >> +#define DWMCI_MPSCTRL_ECB_MODE BIT(2)
> >> >> +#define DWMCI_MPSCTRL_ENCRYPTION BIT(1)
> >> >> +#define DWMCI_MPSCTRL_VALID BIT(0)
> >> >> +
> >> >> /* Variations in Exynos specific dw-mshc controller */
> >> >> enum dw_mci_exynos_type {
> >> >> DW_MCI_TYPE_EXYNOS4210,
> >> >> @@ -74,6 +93,15 @@ static int dw_mci_exynos_priv_init(struct dw_mci *host)
> >> >> {
> >> >> struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data *priv = host->priv;
> >> >>
> >> >> + if (priv->ctrl_type == DW_MCI_TYPE_EXYNOS5420) {
> >> >> + mci_writel(host, MPSBEGIN0, 0);
> >> >> + mci_writel(host, MPSEND0, DWMCI_BLOCK_NUM);
> >> >> + mci_writel(host, MPSCTRL0, DWMCI_MPSCTRL_SECURE_WRITE_BIT |
> >> >> + DWMCI_MPSCTRL_NON_SECURE_READ_BIT |
> >> >> + DWMCI_MPSCTRL_VALID |
> >> >> + DWMCI_MPSCTRL_NON_SECURE_WRITE_BIT);
> >> > Yuvaraj,
> >> >
> >> > Just one thing to check.
> >> > ch#0 and #1 of three hosts are only valid for SMU control.
> >> > Did you consider #2 host?
> >> > It seems not.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Only host#0 and host#1 has SMU (On exynos5420).
> >> Host #2 does not contain SMU.
> > Let me clear it.
> > I mean that current change allows for ch2 to access registers related to SMU,
> > even though ch2 doesn't actually has SMU. It's not valid IO area.
> No,host#0 and host#1 are compatible with "samsung,exynos5420-dw-mshc"
> but host#2 is compatible with the "samsung,exynos5250-dw-mshc".
> Below is the DT patch posted in another thread.
> [1] [PATCH V4] ARM: dts: Add dwmmc DT nodes for exynos5420 SOC
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg21985.html
> I will resubmit the DT patch[1] with reg = <0x12220000 0x1000> for host#2.
Hmm. If we notice exynos5420's other newly added registers apart from SMU,
it is difficult to say exynos5420 is compatible with exynos5250 fully for #2.
But because there is no use case for new registers, it could be acceptable.
Ok, we should be careful to configure DT file though.
Thanks,
Seungwon Jeon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
