RE: [PATCH v1] ARM: tegra: Fix sd4 regulator in Jetson TK1 device tree

[Vidya Sagar]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 11:18 PM
> To: Vidya Sagar
> Cc: thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx; Laxman Dewangan; Krishna Thota; linux-
> tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ARM: tegra: Fix sd4 regulator in Jetson TK1 device
> tree
> 
> On 10/01/2014 11:13 AM, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 9:15 PM
> >> To: Vidya Sagar
> >> Cc: thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx; Laxman Dewangan; Krishna Thota; linux-
> >> tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ARM: tegra: Fix sd4 regulator in Jetson TK1
> >> device tree
> >>
> >> On 09/29/2014 04:25 AM, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:36 AM
> >>>> To: Vidya Sagar
> >>>> Cc: thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx; Laxman Dewangan; Krishna Thota;
> >>>> linux- tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> >>>> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ARM: tegra: Fix sd4 regulator in Jetson TK1
> >>>> device tree
> >>>>
> >>>> On 09/22/2014 11:57 AM, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> >>>>> sd4 is an always on regulator which is turned on at boot time.
> >>>>> It is externally controller through gpio. This change reflects the
> >>>>> same in Jetson TK1 device tree
> >>>>
> >>>> In the schematics, the "Power Sequencing" timing diagram says "S/W
> >>>> controlled" for SD4/+1.05V_RUN. I also don't see an "ENABLE1" pin
> >>>> on the AS3722, which would be required for ...
> >>
> >> Can you please comment on this aspect of the issue?
> >>
> >>>>> +					ams,ext-control = <1>;
> >>>>
> >>>> ... to be valid.
> >>>>
> >>>> What's the source of information behind this change?
> >>>>
> >>>> What symptoms does this patch correct?
> >>>
> >>> I'm seeing one issue when I add support for PCIe suspend/resume
> >> functionality.
> >>> The issue is that, when regulator_bulk_diable() is called, disabling
> >>> one of
> >> the power rails (which is deriving its voltage from SD4) of PCIe is failing.
> >>> The reason being, I2C controller is getting power gated
> >>
> >> Why is the fix being applied to SD4 if the issue is with a power rail
> >> derived from SD4? Shouldn't any fix be applied directly to the
> >> problematic rail rather than some parent rail?
> >>
> >> Since the I2C controller is part of the SoC and we don't have power
> >> domain support yet, the only way the I2C controller can get power
> >> gated is when the SoC as a whole is turned off.
> >>
> >>   > before power rail disable is called.
> >>
> >> ... so without making SD4 dependant on ext-control, since no SW can
> >> be running at this point, the only way SD4 could get turned off is
> >> that the PMIC turns it off itself at the appropriate point in the
> >> system power sequence based on its OTP programming, or the board HW
> >> is already set up to turn off
> >> SD4 at the appropriate time somehow. Is that not happening?
> >> That would imply incorrect PMIC programming wouldn't it?
> >>
> >
> > After some debugging, found that the I2C driver's suspend is getting
> > called before the suspend of PCIe is called (BTW, PCie has
> > suspend_noirq..!) Hence, when PCIe driver wants to disable regulators it
> fails because of I2C write failure, which is expected given I2C is already
> suspended.
> 
> Ah. It sounds like the PCIe driver should have a regular suspend function not
> a suspend_noirq function then. It's certainly expected that resources behind
> an I2C bus (i.e. most regulators) can't be manipulated in a suspend_noirq
> function.
> 

PCIe host controller driver can't have regular suspend function, because,
PCI subsystem has its own suspend_noirq which tries to read Config registers of the connected PCIe devices, which
in turn results in hang (because host controller would have been suspended by then...!)

> > Hence, SD4 is made dependent on ENABLE1 input which is the sleep signal
> from Tegra.
> >
> >>> Hence SD4 is made dependent on ENABLE1, which is nothing but the
> >>> deep sleep signal coming from Tegra, So eventually, SD4 will be
> >>> powered off
> >> when system enters into deep-sleep state.
> >>
> >> This sounds like a workaround that happens to make the system do what
> >> you want rather than a root-cause fix.
> >>
> >>> Source of information is from downstream kernel
> >>
> >> We need to use HW schematics and other primary data to determine the
> >> correct approach.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/