On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 11:55:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 29-06-22, 00:04, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > The exynos-pcie driver called phy_power_on() and then phy_init() for some
> > historical reasons. However the generic PHY framework assumes that the
> > proper sequence is to call phy_init() first, then phy_power_on(). The
> > operations done by both functions should be considered as one action and
> > as such they are called by the exynos-pcie driver (without doing anything
> > between them). The initialization is just a sequence of register writes,
> > which cannot be altered, without breaking the hardware operation.
> >
> > To match the generic PHY framework requirement, simply move all register
> > writes to the phy_init()/phy_exit() and drop power_on()/power_off()
> > callbacks. This way the driver will also work with the old (incorrect)
> > PHY initialization call sequence.
>
> Is the plan to merge thru pcie tree?
I guess these patches should go together. I don't see any major
exynos series pending, but I do have two minor pci-exynos.c patches in
the queue.
If you ack it (after resolution of your question below) I'd be happy
to take both if it doesn't cause trouble for you.
> > Reported-by: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/phy/samsung/phy-exynos-pcie.c | 25 +++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/samsung/phy-exynos-pcie.c b/drivers/phy/samsung/phy-exynos-pcie.c
> > index 578cfe07d07a..53c9230c2907 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/samsung/phy-exynos-pcie.c
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/samsung/phy-exynos-pcie.c
> > @@ -51,6 +51,13 @@ static int exynos5433_pcie_phy_init(struct phy *phy)
> > {
> > struct exynos_pcie_phy *ep = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> >
> > + regmap_update_bits(ep->pmureg, EXYNOS5433_PMU_PCIE_PHY_OFFSET,
> > + BIT(0), 1);
> > + regmap_update_bits(ep->fsysreg, PCIE_EXYNOS5433_PHY_GLOBAL_RESET,
> > + PCIE_APP_REQ_EXIT_L1_MODE, 0);
> > + regmap_update_bits(ep->fsysreg, PCIE_EXYNOS5433_PHY_L1SUB_CM_CON,
> > + PCIE_REFCLK_GATING_EN, 0);
> > +
>
> why not retain exynos5433_pcie_phy_power_on() and call it from here and
> drop in ops. It would be clear to reader that these are for turning on
> the phy...
>
> > regmap_update_bits(ep->fsysreg, PCIE_EXYNOS5433_PHY_COMMON_RESET,
> > PCIE_PHY_RESET, 1);
> > regmap_update_bits(ep->fsysreg, PCIE_EXYNOS5433_PHY_MAC_RESET,
> > @@ -109,20 +116,7 @@ static int exynos5433_pcie_phy_init(struct phy *phy)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static int exynos5433_pcie_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
> > -{
> > - struct exynos_pcie_phy *ep = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> > -
> > - regmap_update_bits(ep->pmureg, EXYNOS5433_PMU_PCIE_PHY_OFFSET,
> > - BIT(0), 1);
> > - regmap_update_bits(ep->fsysreg, PCIE_EXYNOS5433_PHY_GLOBAL_RESET,
> > - PCIE_APP_REQ_EXIT_L1_MODE, 0);
> > - regmap_update_bits(ep->fsysreg, PCIE_EXYNOS5433_PHY_L1SUB_CM_CON,
> > - PCIE_REFCLK_GATING_EN, 0);
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static int exynos5433_pcie_phy_power_off(struct phy *phy)
> > +static int exynos5433_pcie_phy_exit(struct phy *phy)
> > {
> > struct exynos_pcie_phy *ep = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> >
> > @@ -135,8 +129,7 @@ static int exynos5433_pcie_phy_power_off(struct phy *phy)
> >
> > static const struct phy_ops exynos5433_phy_ops = {
> > .init = exynos5433_pcie_phy_init,
> > - .power_on = exynos5433_pcie_phy_power_on,
> > - .power_off = exynos5433_pcie_phy_power_off,
> > + .exit = exynos5433_pcie_phy_exit,
> > .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > };
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1
>
> --
> ~Vinod
>
> --
> linux-phy mailing list
> linux-phy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy
