Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] scsi: ufs-qcom: Add reset control support for host controller

From: cang
Date: Tue Dec 17 2019 - 13:44:13 EST

Next message: Richard Guy Briggs: "Re: [PATCH ghak90 V7 06/21] audit: contid limit of 32k imposed to avoid DoS"
Previous message: Ben Hutchings: "Re: [PATCH 3.16 000/136] 3.16.80-rc1 review"
In reply to: Jeffrey Hugo: "Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] scsi: ufs-qcom: Add reset control support for host controller"
Next in thread: Vinod Koul: "Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] scsi: ufs-qcom: Add reset control support for host controller"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 2019-12-18 00:00, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 8:08 AM Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 17-12-19, 18:09, cang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 2019-12-17 17:24, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > Hi Can,
> >
> > On 17-12-19, 15:10, cang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > On 2019-12-17 12:13, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > Hi Can,
> > > >
> > > > On 17-12-19, 08:37, cang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > On 2019-12-17 03:12, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 12:05 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Can,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 14-11-19, 22:09, Can Guo wrote:
> > > > > > > > Add reset control for host controller so that host controller can be reset
> > > > > > > > as required in its power up sequence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am seeing a regression on UFS on SM8150-mtp with this patch. I think
> > > > > > > Jeff is seeing same one lenove laptop on 8998.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Confirmed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 845 does not seem to have this issue and only thing I can see is
> > > > > > > that on
> > > > > > > sm8150 and 8998 we define reset as:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > resets = <&gcc GCC_UFS_BCR>;
> > > > > > > reset-names = "rst";
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Jeffrey and Vinod,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for reporting this. May I know what kind of regression do you
> > > > > see on
> > > > > 8150 and 8998?
> > > > > BTW, do you have reset control for UFS PHY in your DT?
> > > > > See 71278b058a9f8752e51030e363b7a7306938f64e.
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI, we use reset control on all of our platforms and it is
> > > > > a must during our power up sequence.
> > > >
> > > > Yes we do have this and additionally both the DTS describe a 'rst' reset
> > > > and this patch tries to use this.
> > > >
> > > > Can you please tell me which platform this was tested on how the reset
> > > > was described in DT
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Hi Vinod,
> > >
> > > If you are using the 8998's DT present on upstream, you may also
> > > need to
> > > enable
> > > device reset on your platform. (We usually do a device reset before
> > > call
> > > ufshcd_hba_enable())
> > > Given that 845 works fine, it may be the difference you have with
> > > 845. 845
> > > has device
> > > reset support ready in upstream code, you can check sdm845-mtp.dts.
> > > It is same for 8150, which is a lack of device reset support in
> > > upstream
> > > code base.
> >
> > I am using 8150mtp and you can see the DTS at [1]
> > with this patch I get phy timeout error
> >
> > [ 2.532594] qcom-qmp-phy 1d87000.phy: phy initialization timed-out
> >
> > If i revert this patch the Timeout goes away. UFS node for this platform
> > is enabled in [2] and [3]
> >
> > I did add the GPIO as well for testing but that doesnt work, only thing
> > that makes it work is rename the reset line to something other that
> > 'rst'
> >
> > I found that with this patch the reset is invoked twice, not sure why!
> >
> > The 845 does not define a reset 'rst' but both 8150 and 8998 define
> > that!
> >
> > [1]:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/qcom/linux.git/log/?h=for-next
> > [2]:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/qcom/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=3834a2e92229ef26d30de28acb698b2b23d3e397
> > [3]:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/qcom/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=3e5bf28d2c3981f949e848eec8a60e0b9b61189d
> > >
> > > To enable UFS device reset, please see
> > > 1. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20190828191756.24312-4-bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > 2. 53a5372ce326116f3e3d3f1d701113b2542509f4
> >
> > Yes both are added for UFS and I am testing with these..
> > >
> > > FYI, I tested the patch on 8250 and its family platforms. In my
> > > build, I
> > > ported
> > > change in #2 to my code base (in your case, make change to
> > > drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm8998.c) and enable the GPIO in DT like
> > > sdm845-mtp.dts
> >
> > Please see drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sm8150.c upstream
> >
> > > reset-gpios = <&tlmm 150 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> >
> > Yup, added:
> >
> > reset-gpios = <&tlmm 175 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>
> Hi Vinod,
>
> What do you mean by the reset is invoked twice?
>
> Renaming 'rst' to something else equals disabling this patch.
>
> You said 845 has not this problem, I thought you tested the patch on 845
> with
> the same 'rst' defined on 8998 and 8150. If 'rst' is not present in 845's
> DT,
> it means this patch has no impact on 845.

To clarify: This problem is not seen in 845 with upstream kernel ie
5.5-rc1 but regression is observed in sm8150 and 8998 (Jeff)

And if I add the reset line to 845 (i am testing on dragon board
RB3, I am seeing same issue here as well)
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
@@ -1374,6 +1374,8 @@
lanes-per-direction = <2>;
power-domains = <&gcc UFS_PHY_GDSC>;
#reset-cells = <1>;
+ resets = <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_BCR>;
+ reset-names = "rst";

iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x100 0xf>;

And on boot i am seeing UFS failing:

[ 3.205567] qcom-qmp-phy 88eb000.phy: Registered Qcom-QMP phy
[ 3.215440] ufshcd-qcom 1d84000.ufshc: ufshcd_populate_vreg: Unable to find vdd-hba-supply regulator, assuming enabled
[ 3.226315] ufshcd-qcom 1d84000.ufshc: ufshcd_populate_vreg: Unable to find vccq-supply regulator, assuming enabled
[ 3.236844] ufshcd-qcom 1d84000.ufshc: ufshcd_populate_vreg: Unable to find vccq2-supply regulator, assuming enabled
[ 3.257053] scsi host0: ufshcd
[ 3.275109] qcom-qmp-phy 1d87000.phy: phy initialization timed-out
[ 3.283677] qcom_rpmh TCS Busy, retrying RPMH message send: addr=0x40904
[ 3.290508] phy phy-1d87000.phy.0: phy poweron failed --> -110
[ 3.296407] ufshcd-qcom 1d84000.ufshc: ufs_qcom_power_up_sequence: phy power on failed, ret = -110
[ 3.360851] ufshcd-qcom 1d84000.ufshc: Controller enable failed
[ 3.366838] ufshcd-qcom 1d84000.ufshc: Host controller enable failed

> Actually, in our code base, we are not using phy-qcom-qmp.c. Instead,
> we are using phy-qcom-ufs.c. phy-qcom-ufs.c is the one we use in all of our
> mobile projects. Although both have the same functionality,
> but in phy-qcom-ufs.c, the PCS ready bit polling timeout is 1000000us,
> while in phy-qcom-qmp.c the PCS ready bit polling timeout is 1000us.
> Would you mind give below change a try?

Sure and this seems to do the trick on 845 with resets defined, Jeff can
you try this on your laptop

I'm attaching a complete log of the failure I see.

Increasing PHY_INIT_COMPLETE_TIMEOUT to the indicated value appears to
fix the issue for me.

But I dont get same result on sm8150-mtp, i am still seeing timeout with
1000000us.

The bigger question is why is the reset causing the timeout to be
increased for sdm845 and not to work in case of sm8150!

> FYI, I tried the opposite change on my board (decrease the PCS polling
> timeout
> used in phy-qcom-ufs.c), I did see PCS polling timeout, which is the same
> failure
> you encountered.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c
> b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c
> index 39e8deb..0ee9149 100644
> --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c
> +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
> /* QPHY_V3_PCS_MISC_CLAMP_ENABLE register bits */
> #define CLAMP_EN BIT(0) /* enables i/o
> clamp_n */
>
> -#define PHY_INIT_COMPLETE_TIMEOUT 1000
> +#define PHY_INIT_COMPLETE_TIMEOUT 1000000
> #define POWER_DOWN_DELAY_US_MIN 10
> #define POWER_DOWN_DELAY_US_MAX 11
>
> On 845, if there is 'rst'
>
> Thanks.

--
~Vinod

Hi Vinod and Jeffrey,

Let me summary here, now the 1000000us timeout works for both 845 and 8998.
However, 8150 still fails.

The bigger question is why is the reset causing the timeout to be
increased for sdm845 and not to work in case of sm8150! (Vinod)

I would not say this patch increases the timeout. With this patch,
the PCS polling timeout, per my profiling, the PCS ready usually needs
less than 5000us, which is the actual time needed for PCS bit to be ready.

The reason why 1000us worked for you is because, w/o the patch, UFS PHY
registers are retained from pre-kernel stage (bootloader i.e.), the PCS ready
bit was set to 1 in pre-kernel stage, so when kernel driver reads it, it returns
1, not even to be polled at all. It may seem "faster", but not the right
thing to do, because kernel stage may need different PHY settings than
pre-kernel stage, keeping the settings configured in pre-kernel stage is not
always right, so this patch is needed. And increasing 1000us to 1000000us
is the right thing to do, but not a hack.

As reg for the phy initialization timeout on 8150, I found there is something
wrong with its settings in /drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c

static const struct qmp_phy_init_tbl sm8150_ufsphy_serdes_tbl[] = {
QMP_PHY_INIT_CFG(QPHY_POWER_DOWN_CONTROL, 0x01),
QMP_PHY_INIT_CFG(QSERDES_V4_COM_SYSCLK_EN_SEL, 0xd9),

"QMP_PHY_INIT_CFG(QPHY_POWER_DOWN_CONTROL, 0x01)" should NOT appear in the serdes
table! I haven't check who made this change, but please have a try after remove
this line from sm8150_ufsphy_serdes_tbl.

Thanks.
Can Guo.

Next message: Richard Guy Briggs: "Re: [PATCH ghak90 V7 06/21] audit: contid limit of 32k imposed to avoid DoS"
Previous message: Ben Hutchings: "Re: [PATCH 3.16 000/136] 3.16.80-rc1 review"
In reply to: Jeffrey Hugo: "Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] scsi: ufs-qcom: Add reset control support for host controller"
Next in thread: Vinod Koul: "Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] scsi: ufs-qcom: Add reset control support for host controller"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]