Re: [PATCH v1] sdhci: tegra: Remove warnings about missing device-tree properties

[Thierry Reding]

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 03:18:40PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 22.05.2020 15:13, Thierry Reding ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 09:09:33AM -0700, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/20/20 4:26 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 04:00, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> 19.05.2020 23:44, Sowjanya Komatineni ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> >>>>> On 5/19/20 12:07 PM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/19/20 11:41 AM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 5/19/20 11:34 AM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/19/20 9:33 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 19.05.2020 19:24, Thierry Reding ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 05:05:27PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 19.05.2020 10:28, Ulf Hansson ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 17:44, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Several people asked me about the MMC warnings in the KMSG log and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I had to tell to ignore them because these warning are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-Tegra210 SoCs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why are the warnings irrelevant?
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's what the DT binding doc says [1].
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/nvidia%2Ctegra20-sdhci.txt
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Although, looking at the driver's code and TRM docs, it seems
> >>>>>>>>>>> that all
> >>>>>>>>>>> those properties are really irrelevant only to the older Terga20
> >>>>>>>>>>> SoC. So
> >>>>>>>>>>> the binding doc is a bit misleading.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, the binding explicitly says that the properties are
> >>>>>>>>>>> optional, which is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>> Optional only means that drivers must not fail if these properties
> >>>>>>>>>> aren't found, it doesn't mean that the driver can't warn that they
> >>>>>>>>>> are missing.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Quite possibly the only reason why they were made optional is because
> >>>>>>>>>> they weren't part of the bindings since the beginning. Anything added
> >>>>>>>>>> to a binding after the first public release has to be optional by
> >>>>>>>>>> definition, otherwise DT ABI wouldn't be stable.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I think these warnings were added on purpose, though I also see that
> >>>>>>>>>> there are only values for these in device tree for Tegra186 and
> >>>>>>>>>> Tegra194
> >>>>>>>>>> but not Tegra210 where these should also be necessary.
> >>>>>>>> dt binding doc we have is common for MMC, SD and SDIO of all Tegras.
> >>>>>>>> Its not mandatory to have both 3v3 and 1v8 in device tree as based
> >>>>>>>> on signal mode.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As these driver strengths are SoC specific, they are part of Tegra
> >>>>>>>> SoC specific device tree where same values will be applicable to all
> >>>>>>>> Tegra SoC specific platforms.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Based on interface usage on platform, we use one or both of them
> >>>>>>>> like sdcard supports dual voltage and we use both 3V3 and 1V8 but if
> >>>>>>>> same interface is used for WIFI SD we use 1V8 only.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So made these dt properties as optional.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Other reason they are optional is, Tegra210 and prior has drive
> >>>>>>>> strength settings part of apb_misc and Tegra186 and later has driver
> >>>>>>>> strengths part of SDMMC controller. So,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Pinctrls "sdmmc-3v3-drv" and "sdmmc-1v8-drv" for driver strengths
> >>>>>>>> are applicable for Tegra210 and prior.
> >>>>>>>> - dt properties pad-autocal-pull-up/down-offset-1v8/3v3-timeout are
> >>>>>>>> for T186 onwards for driver strengths
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Looks like dt binding doc need fix to clearly document these based
> >>>>>>>> on SoC or agree with Yaml we can conditionally specify pinctrl or dt
> >>>>>>>> properties based on SoC dependent.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Adding Sowjanya who wrote this code. Perhaps she can clarify why the
> >>>>>>>>>> warnings were added. If these values /should/ be there on a subset of
> >>>>>>>>>> Tegra, then I think we should keep them, or add them again, but
> >>>>>>>>>> perhaps
> >>>>>>>>>> add a better way of identifying when they are necessary and when
> >>>>>>>>>> it is
> >>>>>>>>>> safe to work without them.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That said, looking at those checks I wonder if they are perhaps just
> >>>>>>>>>> wrong. Or at the very least they seem redundant. It looks to me like
> >>>>>>>>>> they can just be:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>      if (tegra_host->pinctrl_state_XYZ == NULL) {
> >>>>>>>>>>          ...
> >>>>>>>>>>      }
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That !IS_ERR(...) doesn't seem to do anything. But in that case, it's
> >>>>>>>>>> also obvious why we're warning about them on platforms where these
> >>>>>>>>>> properties don't exist in DT.
> >>>>>>>> As drive strengths are through dt properties for T186 and later and
> >>>>>>>> thru pinctrl for T210 and prior, driver first checks for dt autocal
> >>>>>>>> timeout pull-up/down properties and if they are not found, it then
> >>>>>>>> checks for presence of pinctrl_state_xyx_drv only when valid
> >>>>>>>> pinctrl_state_xyz is present.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Driver expects either pinctrl or dt properties and shows warning
> >>>>>>>> when neither of them are present as its mandatory to use fixed
> >>>>>>>> driver strengths when auto calibration fails.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>      err = device_property_read_u32(host->mmc->parent,
> >>>>>>>>              "nvidia,pad-autocal-pull-down-offset-3v3-timeout",
> >>>>>>>>              &autocal->pull_down_3v3_timeout);
> >>>>>>>>      if (err) {
> >>>>>>>>          if (!IS_ERR(tegra_host->pinctrl_state_3v3) &&
> >>>>>>>>              (tegra_host->pinctrl_state_3v3_drv == NULL))
> >>>>>>>>              pr_warn("%s: Missing autocal timeout 3v3-pad drvs\n",
> >>>>>>>>                  mmc_hostname(host->mmc));
> >>>>>>>>          autocal->pull_down_3v3_timeout = 0;
> >>>>>>>>      }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So I think we either need to add those values where appropriate so
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> the warning doesn't show, or we need to narrow down where they are
> >>>>>>>>>> really needed and add a corresponding condition.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But again, perhaps Sowjanya can help clarify if these really are only
> >>>>>>>>>> needed on Tegra210 and later or if these also apply to older chips.
> >>>>>>>>> Either way will be cleaner to convert the DT binding to YAML rather
> >>>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>>> clutter the driver, IMO.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Auto calibration is present from Tegra30 onward and looking into
> >>>>>>> change where autocalibration was added to sdhci driver somehow it was
> >>>>>>> enabled only for T30/T210/T186/T194.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> tegra_sdhci_parse_pad_autocal_dt() was added when auto-calibration
> >>>>>>> was added to driver and I see this dt parse is being done
> >>>>>>> irrespective of NVQUIRK_HAS_PADCALIB quirk so even on platforms
> >>>>>>> without auto cal enabled in driver, these messages shows up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This should be fixed in driver to allow
> >>>>>>> tegra_sdhci_parse_pad_autocal_dt() only when NVQUIRK_HAS_PADCALIB is
> >>>>>>> set to avoid dt parsing to happen on platforms that don't have auto
> >>>>>>> cal enabled.
> >>>>>> Warning on missing drive strengths when auto cal is enabled should be
> >>>>>> present as we should switch to fixed recommended drive strengths when
> >>>>>> auto cal fails.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So probably proper fix should be
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - allow tegra_sdhci_parse_pad_autocal_dt() only when
> >>>>>> NVQUIRK_HAS_PADCALIB is set
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - current driver sets NVQUIRK_HAS_PADCALIB for T30 as well so need to
> >>>>>> add pinctrls "sdmmc-3v3-drv" and "sdmmc-1v8-drv" to Tegra30 device tree.
> >>>>> [Correction] T30 has same drive strengths to use irrespective of signal
> >>>>> voltage and it doesn't have pad control. So for T3- we can update device
> >>>>> tree to specify "default" pinctrl with drvup/dn settings.
> >>>>>> - Keep warning message of missing auto cal timeouts as its mandatory
> >>>>>> to use fixed recommended driver strengths when auto cal fails.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Regarding warnings, I guess simpler and easy fix is to remove warning
> >>>>> message on missing 3v3/1v8 drive strengths as pinctrl/dt properties were
> >>>>> already added for T210/186/194 where we need and old device tree don't
> >>>>> have them but the case where auto cal can fail is very rare.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Otherwise should update driver to allow
> >>>>> tegra_sdhci_parse_pad_autocal_dt() only when NVQUIRK_HAS_PADCALIB is set
> >>>>> and also within tegra_sdhci_parse_pad_autocal_dt() show warning of
> >>>>> missing 3v3/1v8 settings only when NVQUIRK_NEEDS_PAD_CONTROL is set.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thierry, please suggest if you prefer to removing warnings or fix driver
> >>>>> to show warning based on PADCALIB and PAD_CONTROL quirks.
> >>>> The SDIO PINCTRL drive-strengths are usually a part of the board's
> >>>> default PINCTRL state, which is either preset by bootloader or by
> >>>> PINCTRL driver early at a boot time.
> >>>>
> >>>> The SDIO drive-strengths values should be board-specific and not
> >>>> SoC-specific because they should depend on the electrical properties of
> >>>> the board, IIUC.
> >>
> >> Drive strengths we program here when auto calibration fails are recommended
> >> values based on pre-SI circuit analysis and characterized across PVT.
> >>
> >> So, these fail safe values are same for all boards of specific SoC as all
> >> platform designs follow the design guidelines.
> >>
> >>>> If the SDIO PINCTRL states are mandatory for the SDHCI nodes in the
> >>>> device-trees, then the DT binding is wrong since it says that all
> >>>> properties are optional. But I think that the current binding is okay,
> >>>> since today SDHCI PINCTRL drive-strengths are specified implicitly in
> >>>> the device-trees, and thus, there is no real need to emit the noisy
> >>>> warnings in this case.
> >>> For now I will keep $subject patch applied, but please tell me if I
> >>> should drop it so we can start over.
> >>>
> >>> In any case, I would appreciate it if someone could have a stab at
> >>> converting sdhci and tegra DT bindings to yaml.
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards
> >>> Uffe
> >>
> >> HI Uffe,
> >>
> >> Please drop $subject patch. Will send patch that allows parsing for these
> >> properties only for SoC where auto cal is enabled as that's where driver
> >> needs these properties.
> >>
> >> So with this fix, warning will not show up on systems where autocal is not
> >> enabled.
> > 
> > Yes, I think that's a better option. Have we ensured that on all systems
> > where autocal is enabled these values are part of the device tree? Just
> > making sure that we're not going to have some generation still spit out
> > these warnings because we forgot to update the device tree.
> > 
> > For example I see that we set NVQUIRK_HAS_PADCALIB but I don't see these
> > properties being set in arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30.dtsi. Can you add a
> > patch that also adds the properties for Tegra30?
> 
> I don't see the warnings on T30 using Sowjanya's patch which checks for
> NVQUIRK_NEEDS_PAD_CONTROL and not NVQUIRK_HAS_PADCALIB.

Yeah, I noticed that too when looking at Sowjanya's patch. The fact that
we have two of these quirks is somewhat confusing to me. Perhaps we can
add a comment near their definition to clarify what their purpose is?

Thierry

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature