On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 11:58, H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > > Am 08.11.2021 um 16:33 schrieb Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 10:06, H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> + card->quirks |= MMC_QUIRK_NONSTD_SDIO; > >> + card->cccr.wide_bus = 1; > >> + card->cis.vendor = 0x104c; > >> + card->cis.device = 0x9066; > >> + card->cis.blksize = 512; > >> + card->cis.max_dtr = 24000000; > >> + card->ocr = 0x80; > > > > In the past, we discussed a bit around why card->ocr needs to be set here. > > > > The reason could very well be that the DTS file is specifying the > > vmmc-supply with 1.8V fixed regulator, which seems wrong to me. > > I have checked with the schematics but the wlan_en regulator-fixed is just a GPIO > controlling some pin of the wifi chip. > > I guess it enables some regulator or power switch inside the wifi module which > has unknown voltage. > > We can interpret this as two sequential power-switches. The first one controlled > by the gpio-register bit and switches gpio power to the gpio pad of the SoC. The second > one switches the battery voltage to the internal circuits of the wifi module. > > The GPIO itself is on 1.8V VIO level which seems to be the reason for the min/max. > > Now it is a little arbitrary what the DTS describes: the gpio voltage or the unknown > internal voltage of the second switch. > > So from hardware perspective the min/max values are irrelevant. I completely agree with you! That's also why I earlier suggested moving to use an mmc-pwrseq node (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc-pwrseq-simple.yaml), that would allow a better description of the HW. Nevertheless, the important point is that the mmc core gets a valid host->ocr_avail to work with during card initialization. And in this case, it's probably good enough to model this via changing the regulator-min|max-microvolt to get a proper value from the "regulator". > > > > > I would be very interested to know if we would change > > "regulator-min|max-microvolt" of the regulator in the DTS, into > > somewhere in between 2700000-3600000 (2.7-3.6V) > > Ok, if the mmc driver does something with these values it may have indeed an influence. > > > - and see if that > > allows us to drop the assignment of "card->ocr = 0x80;" above. Would > > you mind doing some tests for this? > > Well, with min/max=3.3V and no ocr I get: > > [ 2.765136] omap_hsmmc 480ad000.mmc: card claims to support voltages below defined range > [ 2.776367] omap_hsmmc 480ad000.mmc: found wl1251 > [ 2.782287] mmc2: new SDIO card at address 0001 That's really great information! During the first initialization attempt, things are working fine and the SDIO card gets properly detected. > [ 10.874237] omap_hsmmc 480ad000.mmc: could not set regulator OCR (-22) > [ 10.945373] wl1251_sdio: probe of mmc2:0001:1 failed with error -16 It looks like the card is being re-initialized when it's time to probe with the SDIO func driver. This makes sense, assuming it's been powered off via runtime PM (the "cap-power-off-card" DT property should be set in the DTS for this card's slot). I looked a bit closer to understand the problem above and then I realized why the card->ocr is being set from omap_hsmmc ->init_card() callback. It's most likely because the mmc core in mmc_sdio_init_card() doesn't save the card->ocr when MMC_QUIRK_NONSTD_SDIO is set. Instead it becomes the responsibility for the ->init_card() callback to do it, which seems wrong to me. Note that the card->ocr is being used when re-initializing the SDIO card. I have just sent a patch [1], would you mind trying it, in combination with not assigning card->ocr in $subject patch? > > Adding back card->ocr = 0x80 (and keeping 3.3V for min/max) shows exactly the same. > > Only min/max 1.8V + OCR works: > > [ 2.824188] mmc2: new SDIO card at address 0001 > [ 2.806518] omap_hsmmc 480ad000.mmc: card claims to support voltages below defined range > [ 2.815979] omap_hsmmc 480ad000.mmc: found wl1251 > [ 10.981018] omap_hsmmc 480ad000.mmc: found wl1251 > [ 11.018280] wl1251: using dedicated interrupt line > [ 11.321136] wl1251: loaded > [ 11.378601] wl1251: initialized > [ 14.521759] omap_hsmmc 480ad000.mmc: found wl1251 > [ 38.680725] omap_hsmmc 480ad000.mmc: found wl1251 > [ 39.646942] wl1251: 151 tx blocks at 0x3b788, 35 rx blocks at 0x3a780 > [ 39.654785] wl1251: firmware booted (Rev 4.0.4.3.7) > > Therefore I also tried the 4th combination: min/max 1.8V and no ocr quirk and it fails again. > > Finally I tried setting min to 2.7V and max to 3.6V. This ends up in > > [ 0.402648] reg-fixed-voltage fixed-regulator-wg7210_en: Fixed regulator specified with variable voltages > > So it seems that we need both: min/max = 1.8V and OCR. A little unexpected since I had expected > that min/max is completely irrelevant. > > > If that works, we should add some comments about it above, I think. > > So at the moment no change for [PATCH v1] which I can now send out. > > BR and thanks, > Nikolaus > Thanks a lot for doing these tests! If I am right, it looks like we should be able to skip assigning card->ocr for this quirk, but let's see. Kind regards Uffe [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mmc/patch/20211109192547.28679-1-ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx/
