Asserting reset to a PLL when it's managed by hardware power sequencer would break sequencer's state machine. Putting PLL in reset doesn't save some extra power. Thanks for review. JC On 9/28/20 9:06 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 04:10:30PM +0800, JC Kuo wrote: >> Once UPHY PLL hardware power sequencer is enabled, do not assert >> reset to PEX/SATA PLLs, otherwise UPHY PLL operation will be broken. >> This commit removes reset_control_assert(pcie->rst) and >> reset_control_assert(sata->rst) from PEX/SATA UPHY disable procedure. >> >> Signed-off-by: JC Kuo <jckuo@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> v3: >> new, was a part of "phy: tegra: xusb: Rearrange UPHY init on Tegra210" >> >> drivers/phy/tegra/xusb-tegra210.c | 2 -- >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/phy/tegra/xusb-tegra210.c b/drivers/phy/tegra/xusb-tegra210.c >> index f06e7bc7a51b..ef4bbcbed60b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/phy/tegra/xusb-tegra210.c >> +++ b/drivers/phy/tegra/xusb-tegra210.c >> @@ -504,7 +504,6 @@ static void tegra210_pex_uphy_disable(struct tegra_xusb_padctl *padctl) >> if (--pcie->enable > 0) >> goto unlock; >> >> - reset_control_assert(pcie->rst); >> clk_disable_unprepare(pcie->pll); >> >> unlock: >> @@ -746,7 +745,6 @@ static void tegra210_sata_uphy_disable(struct tegra_xusb_padctl *padctl) >> if (--sata->enable > 0) >> goto unlock; >> >> - reset_control_assert(sata->rst); >> clk_disable_unprepare(sata->pll); >> >> unlock: > > Does this mean that we can no longer reset these PLLs anymore? Is that > safe? Would we ever need to reset them for recovery or similar? For > power saving, is disabling the clock enough, or could we save some extra > power by putting the PLLs into reset? > > Thierry >
