On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 00:19 -0800, nguyenb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 2020-11-30 22:51, Stanley Chu wrote:
> > UFS specficication allows different VCC configurations for UFS devices,
> > for example,
> > (1). 2.70V - 3.60V (Activated by default in UFS core driver)
> > (2). 1.70V - 1.95V (Activated if "vcc-supply-1p8" is declared in
> > device tree)
> > (3). 2.40V - 2.70V (Supported since UFS 3.x)
> >
> > With the introduction of UFS 3.x products, an issue is happening that
> > UFS driver will use wrong "min_uV-max_uV" values to configure the
> > voltage of VCC regulator on UFU 3.x products with the configuration (3)
> > used.
> >
> > To solve this issue, we simply remove pre-defined initial VCC voltage
> > values in UFS core driver with below reasons,
> >
> > 1. UFS specifications do not define how to detect the VCC configuration
> > supported by attached device.
> >
> > 2. Device tree already supports standard regulator properties.
> >
> > Therefore VCC voltage shall be defined correctly in device tree, and
> > shall not changed by UFS driver. What UFS driver needs to do is simply
> > enable or disable the VCC regulator only.
> >
> > Similar change is applied to VCCQ and VCCQ2 as well.
> >
> > Note that we keep struct ufs_vreg unchanged. This is allow vendors to
> > configure proper min_uV and max_uV of any regulators to make
> > regulator_set_voltage() works during regulator toggling flow.
> > Without specific vendor configurations, min_uV and max_uV will be NULL
> > by default and UFS core driver will enable or disable the regulator
> > only without adjusting its voltage.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c | 16 ----------------
> > 1 file changed, 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c
> > b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c
> > index a6f76399b3ae..09e2f04bf4f6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c
> > @@ -133,22 +133,6 @@ static int ufshcd_populate_vreg(struct device
> > *dev, const char *name,
> > vreg->max_uA = 0;
> > }
> >
> > - if (!strcmp(name, "vcc")) {
> > - if (of_property_read_bool(np, "vcc-supply-1p8")) {
> > - vreg->min_uV = UFS_VREG_VCC_1P8_MIN_UV;
> > - vreg->max_uV = UFS_VREG_VCC_1P8_MAX_UV;
> > - } else {
> > - vreg->min_uV = UFS_VREG_VCC_MIN_UV;
> > - vreg->max_uV = UFS_VREG_VCC_MAX_UV;
> > - }
> > - } else if (!strcmp(name, "vccq")) {
> > - vreg->min_uV = UFS_VREG_VCCQ_MIN_UV;
> > - vreg->max_uV = UFS_VREG_VCCQ_MAX_UV;
> > - } else if (!strcmp(name, "vccq2")) {
> > - vreg->min_uV = UFS_VREG_VCCQ2_MIN_UV;
> > - vreg->max_uV = UFS_VREG_VCCQ2_MAX_UV;
> > - }
> > -
> > goto out;
> Do we need this "goto out;"?
Will remove it in next version.
Thanks for remind.
Stanley Chu
>
> >
> > out:
