On 12 January 2015 at 17:18, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 03:29:54PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> Regarding you concern, about me propagating the same design mistake as >> for the ->set_ios() callback, I am not sure I fully understand why you >> think that's the case? > > Because of this: > > mmc_pwrseq_power_up()- Invoked from mmc_power_up(), to power up. > mmc_pwrseq_power_on()- Invoked from mmc_power_up(), to power on. > > This re-inforces the "power up, wait, power on" _power_ _sequence_ > as part of the software design. > > We know that _today_ there is hardware which does not work like that. > We know that we have host adapters which ignore the "power up" part, > because they deal with all the sequencing in hardware. > > I'll refer to your new infrastructure as "pwrseq" and the existing > infrastructure as "power sequence". (That alone shows what an > absurd situation this is - we have two things which have the same > name!) > > Let's say we have a pwrseq handler which implements the power_up() > and power_on() callbacks. It's written for use with a controller > which implements appropriate actions on set_ios() with POWER_UP > and POWER_ON states implemented. > > So, what we have is: > > pwrseq power sequence host state/action > > power_up no power supplied > POWER_UP host applies power to the card > > power_on host is supplying power to card > POWER_ON host applies clocks to the card > > Now, for a more inteligent host, where the hardware takes care of > sequencing the application of power and clocks, we have this: > > pwrseq power sequence host action > > power_up no power applied > POWER_UP host does nothing > > power_on no power applied > POWER_ON host applies power to the card, waits, > and applies the clock > > As we can see, the hardware state which the power_on() method of the > pwrseq is called is highly host dependent. In the first case, power > has already been applied. In the second case, power has not been > applied. > > To have consistency, you need to /first/ solve the problem which I've > been pointing out, otherwise we're going to have these new pwrseq > callbacks being called with inconsistent, host specific power states > being applied to the card. Thanks a lot for elaborating! I understand your concern now. In this context, I believe it's important to state that I think these host driver behaves badly! _All_ host drivers shall handle their "power_up" things while they get MMC_POWER_UP through the ->set_ios() callback. They shouldn't be taking short-cuts and ignore the MMC_POWER_UP state, that also includes those host drivers which are able to handle the power sequence by help from it's controller hardware. I did quick research and found that the following host's ->set_ios() callbacks need to be fixed in this regards. au1xmmc_set_ios() cb710_mmc_set_ios() omap_hsmmc_set_ios() sdricoh_set_ios() __toshsd_set_ios() > > An alternative way to get consistency is to eliminate the pwrseq > "power_on" callback altogether; the "power_up" callback will always > be made before the host interface power sequence is started - and > that is about the only thing we can guarantee given the variability > in host interface designs. Eliminating is likely not an option, since it would mean we will have a hard time to cope with requirements for the pwrseq sequences. An option would be to move the call to the pwrseq ->power_on() callback to the end of mmc_power_up(). That would make it as consistent as we can from mmc core point of view. Right? Kind regards Uffe -- 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
