Hi Eugeniu,
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 5:25 PM Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:19:04AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> [..]
> > > + wlan_en: regulator-wlan_en {
> > > + compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> > > + regulator-name = "wlan-en-regulator";
> > > +
> > > + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > > + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
> >
> > So this is a 3.3V regulator...
> >
> > > +
> > > + gpio = <&gpio_exp_74 4 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > > + startup-delay-us = <70000>;
> > > + enable-active-high;
> > > + };
> > > };
> > >
> > > &can0 {
> >
> > > @@ -273,6 +298,30 @@
> > > status = "okay";
> > > };
> > >
> > > +&sdhi3 {
> > > + pinctrl-0 = <&sdhi3_pins>;
> > > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > > +
> > > + vmmc-supply = <&wlan_en>;
> > > + vqmmc-supply = <&wlan_en>;
> >
> > ... used for both card and I/O line power...
> >
> > > + bus-width = <4>;
> > > + no-1-8-v;
> >
> > ... hence no 1.8V I/O.
> >
> > However, VIO of WL1837 is provided by W1.8V of regulator U55,
> > which is 1.8V?
>
> Looking at the KF-M06 schematics, it seems like the SDIO-relevant lines
> of WL1837 (U52) are interfaced with the SoC via TXS0108EPWR (U57) which
> is there to level-translate from 3.3v (SoC) to 1.8v (WL1837). So,
> from SoC perspective, it looks like the lines are 3.3v-powered.
>
> FTR, the test results are independent on the 'no-1-8-v' property.
Sorry for not noticing the level translator.
So indeed, the WL1837 side is always at 1.8V.
But I believe the SoC side can be either 1.8V or 3.3V, as the level-translator
can handle both, which is confirmed by your testing.
> > > + non-removable;
> > > + cap-power-off-card;
> > > + keep-power-in-suspend;
> > > + max-frequency = <26000000>;
> > > + status = "okay";
> > > +
> > > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > > + #size-cells = <0>;
> > > + wlcore: wlcore@2 {
> > > + compatible = "ti,wl1837";
> > > + reg = <2>;
> > > + interrupt-parent = <&gpio1>;
> > > + interrupts = <25 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>;
> >
> > I'm also a bit puzzled by the interrupt type.
> > On Cat 874, it's IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH, cfr.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/1557997166-63351-2-git-send-email-biju.das@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > On Kingfisher, the IRQ signal is inverted by U104, so I'd expect
> > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW instead of IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING?
>
> That's an insightful comment, if it simply arose from code review.
> I guess we mistakenly relied on [1] during our testing on linux/master.
> So, we definitely have to re-spin the patch to make it independent
> on [1]. The problem is that by dropping [1] and switching from
> IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING to IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW, the wifi testing
> (particularly 'iwlist wlan0 scan') doesn't pass. We have to give
> another thought how to best tackle it.
>
> [1] https://github.com/CogentEmbedded/meta-rcar/blob/289fbd4f8354/meta-rcar-gen3-adas/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-renesas/0024-wl18xx-do-not-invert-IRQ-on-WLxxxx-side.patch
Perhaps some configuration in the WL driver may be involved?
It looks like all other DTSes use IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH, except for
HiKey 960/970, which use IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
