Re: Possible regression with commit 52221610d

[Tim Kryger]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I'm somewhat puzzled to what benefit 52221610d brings after bringing
>> back the write of BIT(0). Is it just that we don't hit the BUG() on
>> non-standard voltages?
>
> It is to allow the use of external regulators that are capable of
> supplying a standard SD/MMC voltage but none of the standard SDHCI
> voltages.
>
>> The full paragraph regarding BIT(0) reads:
>>
>> Before setting this bit, the SD Host Driver shall set SD Bus Voltage
>> Select. If the
>> Host Controller detects the No Card state, this bit shall be cleared.
>> If this bit is cleared, the Host Controller shall immediately stop
>> driving CMD and
>> DAT[3:0] (tri-state) and drive SDCLK to low level (Refer to Section 2.2.14).
>>
>> So the Qualcomm HW engineers implemented the last "shall", but if
>> someone else (what did nvidia do here?) also implemented the first
>> "shall"s then we're back at needing a full revert of 52221610d.
>
> It is difficult to predict how non-compliant host controllers will
> behave in the area where they have chosen to deviate from the
> standard.
>
> Do controllers that lack internal regulators claim to support 1.8,
> 3.0, or 3.3v in the host capabilities register?  Or will they set none
> of these bits?
>
> They lack the ability to influence the externally supplied VDD but
> will they place requirements on the values of the SD Bus Voltage
> Select field?
>
> "If the Host Driver selects an unsupported voltage in the SD Bus
> Voltage Select field, the Host Controller may ignore writes to SD Bus
> Power and keep its value at zero."
>
> I would hope that controllers that fail to implement the regulator
> would allow the SD Bus Voltage Select field to be set to any value.
>
> We have established that it is okay to leave the Voltage Select as
> zero in the Broadcom, Qualcomm, and Samsung implementations.
>
> It would be nice to get confirmation that this is also the case for
> other implementations that rely on an external regulator.

I took a look at Nvidia's host controller in the Tegra124 SoC on a
Jetson TK1 board.

Fortunately, it behaves like the Qualcomm chip and only requires the LSB be set.
--
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/