On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:54 PM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 4/09/19 3:58 AM, Ben Chuang wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:05 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 5:28 AM Ben Chuang <benchuanggli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From: Ben Chuang <ben.chuang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Add support for the GL9750 and GL9755 chipsets.
> >>>
> >>> Enable v4 mode and wait 5ms after set 1.8V signal enable for GL9750/
> >>> GL9755. Fix the value of SDHCI_MAX_CURRENT register and use the vendor
> >>> tuning flow for GL9750.
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ben Chuang <ben.chuang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Usually last one for latest developer / submitter goes on.
> >>
> >>> Co-developed-by: Michael K Johnson <johnsonm@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael K Johnson <johnsonm@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>
> >>> +#define GLI_MAX_TUNING_LOOP 40
> >>
> >>
> >>> +static void gli_set_9750(struct sdhci_host *host)
> >>> +{
> >>> + u32 driving_value = 0;
> >>> + u32 pll_value = 0;
> >>> + u32 sw_ctrl_value = 0;
> >>> + u32 misc_value = 0;
> >>> + u32 parameter_value = 0;
> >>> + u32 control_value = 0;
> >>
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Redundant blank line.
> >>
> >>> + u16 ctrl2 = 0;
> >>
> >> Do you need these all assignments above?
> >>
> >>> + driving_value = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_GLI_9750_DRIVING);
> >>> + pll_value = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_GLI_9750_PLL);
> >>> + sw_ctrl_value = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_GLI_9750_SW_CTRL);
> >>> + misc_value = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_GLI_9750_MISC);
> >>> + parameter_value = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_GLI_9750_TUNING_PARAMETERS);
> >>> + control_value = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_GLI_9750_TUNING_CONTROL);
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + udelay(1);
> >>
> >> This misses the answer to question why. Why this is needed and why
> >> timeout is this long?
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + gl9750_wt_off(host);
> >>> +}
> >>
> >>> +static int __sdhci_execute_tuning_9750(struct sdhci_host *host, u32 opcode)
> >>> +{
> >>> + int i;
> >>
> >>> + int rx_inv = 0;
> >>
> >> Duplicate assignment.
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + for (rx_inv = 0; rx_inv < 2; rx_inv++) {
> >>
> >>> + if (rx_inv & 0x1)
> >>> + gli_set_9750_rx_inv(host, true);
> >>> + else
> >>> + gli_set_9750_rx_inv(host, false);
> >>
> >> gli_set_...(host, !!rx_inv);
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + sdhci_start_tuning(host);
> >>> +
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < GLI_MAX_TUNING_LOOP; i++) {
> >>> + u16 ctrl;
> >>> +
> >>> + sdhci_send_tuning(host, opcode);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!host->tuning_done) {
> >>
> >>> + if (rx_inv == 1) {
> >>
> >> It's an invariant to the loop. So, you may do this check after outter loop.
> >>
> >>> + pr_info("%s: Tuning timeout, falling back to fixed sampling clock\n",
> >>> + mmc_hostname(host->mmc));
> >>
> >>> + sdhci_abort_tuning(host, opcode);
> >>
> >> It will also de-duplicates this call.
> >>
> >>> + return -ETIMEDOUT;
> >>> + }
> >>> + sdhci_abort_tuning(host, opcode);
> >>> + break;
> >>> + }
> >>
> >>> + }
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + pr_info("%s: Tuning failed, falling back to fixed sampling clock\n",
> >>> + mmc_hostname(host->mmc));
> >>> + sdhci_reset_tuning(host);
> >>> + return -EAGAIN;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >>> +static void sdhci_gli_voltage_switch(struct sdhci_host *host)
> >>> +{
> >>
> >> Any comment why?
> >>
> >>> + usleep_range(5000, 5500);
> >>> +}
> >>
> >>> +static u32 sdhci_gl9750_readl(struct sdhci_host *host, int reg)
> >>> +{
> >>> + u32 value;
> >>> +
> >>> + value = readl(host->ioaddr + reg);
> >>
> >>> + if (unlikely(reg == SDHCI_MAX_CURRENT)) {
> >>> + if (!(value & 0xff))
> >>> + value |= 0xc8;
> >>> + }
> >>
> >> if (a) {
> >> if (b) {
> >> ...
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> is the same as
> >>
> >> if (a && b) {
> >> ...
> >> }
> >>
> >>> + return value;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >>> +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_GLI_9755 0x9755
> >>> +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_GLI_9750 0x9750
> >>
> >> --
> >> With Best Regards,
> >> Andy Shevchenko
> >
> > Hi, Andy,
> >
> > Thank you for your comments to make the code better.
> > Waiting to see if Adrian has any other comments.
>
> Nope! :-)
>
> Please go ahead and address Andy's comments.
OK, refine the code and let it better.
