Hi Bjorn,
On 4/18/2018 4:41 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Mon 09 Apr 23:31 PDT 2018, Vivek Gautam wrote:
On 4/10/2018 1:39 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Mon 09 Apr 10:38 PDT 2018, Vivek Gautam wrote:
On 4/9/2018 10:21 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Mon 09 Apr 06:24 PDT 2018, Vivek Gautam wrote:
[..]
diff --git a/include/linux/phy/phy-qcom-ufs.h b/include/linux/phy/phy-qcom-ufs.h
index 0a2c18a9771d..1388c2a2965e 100644
--- a/include/linux/phy/phy-qcom-ufs.h
+++ b/include/linux/phy/phy-qcom-ufs.h
@@ -31,8 +31,21 @@ void ufs_qcom_phy_enable_dev_ref_clk(struct phy *phy);
*/
void ufs_qcom_phy_disable_dev_ref_clk(struct phy *phy);
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PHY_QCOM_UFS)
int ufs_qcom_phy_set_tx_lane_enable(struct phy *phy, u32 tx_lanes);
void ufs_qcom_phy_save_controller_version(struct phy *phy,
- u8 major, u16 minor, u16 step);
+ u8 major, u16 minor, u16 step);
+#else
+static inline int ufs_qcom_phy_set_tx_lane_enable(struct phy *phy, u32 tx_lanes)
+{
+ return -ENOSYS;
+}
+
+static inline void ufs_qcom_phy_save_controller_version(struct phy *phy,
+ u8 major, u16 minor,
+ u16 step)
+{
+}
+#endif /* PHY_QCOM_UFS */
What's the timeline for getting rid of the references to these
functions? I presume that code depending on these being here will
compile but won't actually work?
Yes, these inline definitions are just to keep ufs-qcom happy with the
direct
calls that it makes to these functions.
As you would know these couple of functions are just used by the 20nm phy.
However, we don't have any platform yet in the upstream that enables this
phy.
I am hoping that we will eventually get rid of these functions when we
further
clean up ufs-qcom driver.
I see, but that means that we're calling this function with a struct phy
that might not be a struct ufs_qcom_phy and as such a defconfig with
both enabled will have undefined outcome for the migrated phys.
No, we will have to add support for separate phys as sdm845 has phy per each
lane,
and the older struct phy will exist alongside.
We will call this function only with the older phy pointer.
In particular we do expect that the same kernel will boot on db820c and
sdm845-mtp, so we will have to enable support for the 14nm & 20nm phy
driver (and we don't want random crashes because someone happened to
enable it).
Right, so we create new struct phy while keeping older one intact to keep
the
ufs-qcom work with both - ufs_qcom_phy and qmp_phy.
Some of the controller drivers, such as usb/dwc3/ keep support for old and
new phys,
although there the difference is between generic phy and the usb-phy.
So, I am assuming that if we want to keep ufs-qcom on platforms using 20nm,
14nm and 10nm phys happy, we will have to keep the phys separately for
sometime.
What do you say about it?
My concern is only that the UFS HCI driver doesn't have a way to know if
it's the new or old "type" of phy, but if you can get that working then
I don't have any objections about doing so for a transitional period.
But, you may not use kernel config options to handle this, the same
Image should boot on msm8916, msm8996 and sdm845 (with appropriate dtb
for each one).
Right, i get your concern. I will try to refactor the UFS HCI code to
handle the two
'types' of phys.
I think Can Guo (CC'ed here) was already working on this. I will check
with him
if he already has some code to do this.
Thanks
Vivek
On db820c, we can still work with the ufs_qcom_phy.
I do not have an issue with that.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
