On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:43:03PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:05:30PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 12-07-22, 15:12, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Done now. > > Is this an ack? > > I didn't see any response to your question (added back below). Are > you happy with the patch as-is? Oops, sorry, I missed your ack [1]. That was more recent than your question, so I assume you're ok with the patch as-is. I *would* like an ack from the maintainer, but I'm not sure whether Jingoo is still paying attention to pci-exynos.c. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/YtFQ67MmloipjNzj@matsya > > > > > @@ -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...
