Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci: apply voltage range check only for non-fixed regulators
On 11/13/2012 10:23 PM, Philip Rakity wrote: Hi Marek, Is the regulator dedicated ? or is it shared ? Is it used for eMMC ? If it cannot be turned off -- then just don't list it in the regulators list for vmmc. If it CAN be turned off then need to get back to you. It is dedicated to eMMC device and can be turned off. Patch mmc: sdhci: apply voltage range check only for non-fixed regulators restored sdhci to working state after merging the regulator fix. However there are lots of error messages from sdhci driver: s3c-sdhci s3c-sdhci.0: could not set regulator OCR (-1) The only remaining problem is sdhci driver operation with dummy regulator. Right now it simply fails to initialize if dummy regulator is enabled. Do you have any idea how to fix it properly? Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski Samsung Poland RD Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-mmc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci: apply voltage range check only for non-fixed regulators
On Nov 14, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Kevin Liu keyuan@gmail.com wrote: 2012/11/14 Mark Brown broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com: On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:36:28PM +0800, Kevin Liu wrote: 2012/11/14 Mark Brown broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com: Should this be regulator_set_voltage_tol()? Otherwise it'd be good to explain where the numbers come from. In SD physical layer spec 3.01 chapter 6.6.1, the threshold level for voltage range is defined as below: Vdd(min) = 2.7V while Vdd(max) = 3.6V. The card should work within the voltage range. If you are afraid the voltage value is too aggressive, maybe we can use regulator_set_voltage_tol() to set a smaller range. But which range should be reasonable? The above makes total sense - thanks! I just wasn't aware that the range was specified in this fashion in the spec. Might be worth a comment in the code if you need to respin. Sure, I will update the patch. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-mmc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html re-read spec. Please apply Kevin;s patch. Reviewed-by: Philip Rakity prak...@nvidia.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-mmc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci: apply voltage range check only for non-fixed regulators
2012/11/14 Philip Rakity prak...@nvidia.com: On Nov 14, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Kevin Liu keyuan@gmail.com wrote: 2012/11/14 Mark Brown broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com: On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:36:28PM +0800, Kevin Liu wrote: 2012/11/14 Mark Brown broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com: Should this be regulator_set_voltage_tol()? Otherwise it'd be good to explain where the numbers come from. In SD physical layer spec 3.01 chapter 6.6.1, the threshold level for voltage range is defined as below: Vdd(min) = 2.7V while Vdd(max) = 3.6V. The card should work within the voltage range. If you are afraid the voltage value is too aggressive, maybe we can use regulator_set_voltage_tol() to set a smaller range. But which range should be reasonable? The above makes total sense - thanks! I just wasn't aware that the range was specified in this fashion in the spec. Might be worth a comment in the code if you need to respin. Sure, I will update the patch. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-mmc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html re-read spec. Please apply Kevin;s patch. Reviewed-by: Philip Rakity prak...@nvidia.com Philip, thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-mmc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci: apply voltage range check only for non-fixed regulators
Hi Marek,
On Tue, Nov 13 2012, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
Fixed regulators cannot change their voltage, so disable all voltage
range checking for them, otherwise the driver fails to operate with
fixed regulators. Up to now it worked only by luck, because
regulator_is_supported_voltage() function returned incorrect values.
Commit regulator: fix voltage check in regulator_is_supported_voltage()
fixed that function and now additional check is needed for fixed
regulators.
Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski m.szyprow...@samsung.com
---
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
index c7851c0..6f6534e 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
@@ -2923,7 +2923,7 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
regulator_enable(host-vmmc);
#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
- if (host-vmmc) {
+ if (host-vmmc regulator_count_voltages(host-vmmc) 1) {
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 330,
330);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330)))
Thanks for the longer explanation. I'm still missing something, though;
what's wrong with running the check as it was with the new regulator code?
(I haven't tried it yet.)
#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
if (host-vmmc) {
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 330,
330);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330;
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 300,
300);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_300)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_300;
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 180,
180);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_180)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_180;
}
#endif /* CONFIG_REGULATOR */
The point is to remove unsupported voltages, so if someone sets up a
fixed regulator at 330, all of the other caps are disabled. Why
wouldn't that work without this change, and how are we supposed to
remove those caps on a fixed regulator after your patchset?
Thanks, sorry if I'm missing something obvious,
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball c...@laptop.org http://printf.net/
One Laptop Per Child
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-mmc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci: apply voltage range check only for non-fixed regulators
Hello,
On 11/13/2012 2:45 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi Marek,
On Tue, Nov 13 2012, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
Fixed regulators cannot change their voltage, so disable all voltage
range checking for them, otherwise the driver fails to operate with
fixed regulators. Up to now it worked only by luck, because
regulator_is_supported_voltage() function returned incorrect values.
Commit regulator: fix voltage check in regulator_is_supported_voltage()
fixed that function and now additional check is needed for fixed
regulators.
Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski m.szyprow...@samsung.com
---
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
index c7851c0..6f6534e 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
@@ -2923,7 +2923,7 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
regulator_enable(host-vmmc);
#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
- if (host-vmmc) {
+ if (host-vmmc regulator_count_voltages(host-vmmc) 1) {
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 330,
330);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330)))
Thanks for the longer explanation. I'm still missing something, though;
what's wrong with running the check as it was with the new regulator code?
(I haven't tried it yet.)
#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
if (host-vmmc) {
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 330,
330);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330;
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 300,
300);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_300)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_300;
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 180,
180);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_180)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_180;
}
#endif /* CONFIG_REGULATOR */
The point is to remove unsupported voltages, so if someone sets up a
fixed regulator at 330, all of the other caps are disabled. Why
wouldn't that work without this change, and how are we supposed to
remove those caps on a fixed regulator after your patchset?
Thanks, sorry if I'm missing something obvious,
On our boards eMMC is connected to fixed 2.8V regulator, what results in
clearing all available voltages and fail. The same situation is when one
enable dummy regulator and try to use sdhci with it. My patch fixes this
and restores sdhci to working state as it was before (before fixing
regulator regulator_is_supported_voltage() function and earlier when
MMC_BROKEN_VOLATGE capability was used).
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung Poland RD Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-mmc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci: apply voltage range check only for non-fixed regulators
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 13 2012, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13 2012, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
Fixed regulators cannot change their voltage, so disable all voltage
range checking for them, otherwise the driver fails to operate with
fixed regulators. Up to now it worked only by luck, because
regulator_is_supported_voltage() function returned incorrect values.
Commit regulator: fix voltage check in regulator_is_supported_voltage()
fixed that function and now additional check is needed for fixed
regulators.
Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski m.szyprow...@samsung.com
---
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
index c7851c0..6f6534e 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
@@ -2923,7 +2923,7 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
regulator_enable(host-vmmc);
#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
- if (host-vmmc) {
+ if (host-vmmc regulator_count_voltages(host-vmmc) 1) {
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 330,
330);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330)))
Thanks for the longer explanation. I'm still missing something, though;
what's wrong with running the check as it was with the new regulator code?
(I haven't tried it yet.)
#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
if (host-vmmc) {
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 330,
330);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330;
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 300,
300);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_300)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_300;
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 180,
180);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_180)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_180;
}
#endif /* CONFIG_REGULATOR */
The point is to remove unsupported voltages, so if someone sets up a
fixed regulator at 330, all of the other caps are disabled. Why
wouldn't that work without this change, and how are we supposed to
remove those caps on a fixed regulator after your patchset?
Thanks, sorry if I'm missing something obvious,
On our boards eMMC is connected to fixed 2.8V regulator, what results in
clearing all available voltages and fail. The same situation is when one
enable dummy regulator and try to use sdhci with it. My patch fixes this
and restores sdhci to working state as it was before (before fixing
regulator regulator_is_supported_voltage() function and earlier when
MMC_BROKEN_VOLATGE capability was used).
I see. Sounds like a separate bug -- Philip (or anyone else), any
idea how we should be treating eMMCs with a fixed voltage here?
Thanks,
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball c...@laptop.org http://printf.net/
One Laptop Per Child
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-mmc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci: apply voltage range check only for non-fixed regulators
Hi Marek,
Is the regulator dedicated ? or is it shared ? Is it used for eMMC ?
If it cannot be turned off -- then just don't list it in the regulators list
for vmmc.
If it CAN be turned off then need to get back to you.
Philip
On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Chris Ball c...@laptop.org wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 13 2012, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13 2012, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
Fixed regulators cannot change their voltage, so disable all voltage
range checking for them, otherwise the driver fails to operate with
fixed regulators. Up to now it worked only by luck, because
regulator_is_supported_voltage() function returned incorrect values.
Commit regulator: fix voltage check in regulator_is_supported_voltage()
fixed that function and now additional check is needed for fixed
regulators.
Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski m.szyprow...@samsung.com
---
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
index c7851c0..6f6534e 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
@@ -2923,7 +2923,7 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
regulator_enable(host-vmmc);
#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
- if (host-vmmc) {
+ if (host-vmmc regulator_count_voltages(host-vmmc) 1) {
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 330,
330);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330)))
Thanks for the longer explanation. I'm still missing something, though;
what's wrong with running the check as it was with the new regulator code?
(I haven't tried it yet.)
#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
if (host-vmmc) {
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 330,
330);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330;
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 300,
300);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_300)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_300;
ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host-vmmc, 180,
180);
if ((ret = 0) || (!(caps[0] SDHCI_CAN_VDD_180)))
caps[0] = ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_180;
}
#endif /* CONFIG_REGULATOR */
The point is to remove unsupported voltages, so if someone sets up a
fixed regulator at 330, all of the other caps are disabled. Why
wouldn't that work without this change, and how are we supposed to
remove those caps on a fixed regulator after your patchset?
Thanks, sorry if I'm missing something obvious,
On our boards eMMC is connected to fixed 2.8V regulator, what results in
clearing all available voltages and fail. The same situation is when one
enable dummy regulator and try to use sdhci with it. My patch fixes this
and restores sdhci to working state as it was before (before fixing
regulator regulator_is_supported_voltage() function and earlier when
MMC_BROKEN_VOLATGE capability was used).
I see. Sounds like a separate bug -- Philip (or anyone else), any
idea how we should be treating eMMCs with a fixed voltage here?
Thanks,
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball c...@laptop.org http://printf.net/
One Laptop Per Child
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-mmc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
