[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/5] Tegra30: MMC: Add SD bus power-rail and SDMMC pad init routines

Tom Warren twarren.nvidia at gmail.com
Tue Mar 5 00:11:23 CET 2013


Stephen,

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 09:59 AM, Tom Warren wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>> On 02/26/2013 01:46 PM, Tom Warren wrote:
>>>> T30 requires specific SDMMC pad programming, and bus power-rail bringup.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/board/nvidia/cardhu/cardhu.c b/board/nvidia/cardhu/cardhu.c
>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Do I2C/PMU writes to bring up SD card bus power
>>>> + *
>>>> + */
>>>> +void board_sdmmc_voltage_init(void)
>>>
>>> We really shouldn't be adding to board files if we're remotely serious
>>> about device tree; the whole point of DT is to remove code from the
>>> board files, and describe the desired configuration as data in DT instead.
>>>
>>> This function should be replaced by regulator nodes/properties in the
>>> device tree, and the MMC (core?) driver calling into the board-specific
>>> regulator driver to request the desired voltages.
>>>
>>> But so long as we file a bug to replace this code with an explicit
>>> regulator driver in the future, I guess it's fine for now.
>>
>> I'll file a bug for doing all PMU/power rail work from DT. I think it
>> makes much more sense as a separate (non-MMC) patch.
>
> Yes, certainly a separate patch. Ideally it'd be implemented before
> other code that relies on it. That's why I think we need to take a
> higher-level look at DT support in U-Boot, rather than simply finding
> these issue accidentally while implementing the features we already know
> we need.
>
>>> BTW, I just noticed that commit f01b631 "Tegra30: Add/enable Cardhu
>>> build (T30 reference board)" adds a file called
>>> board/nvidia/cardhu/cardhu.c.mmc. That's a mistake, right?
>>
>> Yep, that's the Cardhu file I was hacking on for MMC support way back
>> when. I can remove it in V2 of these patches, or would you prefer a
>> single, separate patch to do that?
>
> Is the commit that adds that file already pulled into higher-level
> repos? If not, I would simply rebase it to remove that file. If it has,
> then a separate patch to delete it before this series would make sense.
>
>>>> diff --git a/board/nvidia/common/board.c b/board/nvidia/common/board.c
>>>
>>> Hmm. This seems like SoC code, not board code...
>>>
>>>> +void pad_init_mmc(struct tegra_mmc *reg)
>>>> +{
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_TEGRA30)
>>>
>>>> +     /* Set the pad drive strength for SDMMC1 or 3 only */
>>>> +     if (offset != TEGRA_SDMMC1_BASE && offset != TEGRA_SDMMC3_BASE) {
>>>> +             debug("%s: settings are only valid for SDMMC1/SDMMC3!\n",
>>>> +                     __func__);
>>>> +             return;
>>>> +     }
>>>
>>> Perhaps pass in the MMC instance ID instead of the base address. That'd
>>> avoid having to know the base addresses in this code.
>>
>> I still need to know if I've got a SDIO or eMMC ID, though, and I
>> don't think the flags for that in the mmc/host structs (mmc->version,
>> etc.) get populated until the mmc driver has done some I/O with the
>> device (eMMC or SD-card), and I need to set up the pads before that.
>>
>>> In fact, just putting this code into the pinmux driver (which owns these
>>> registers) seems like a better idea; there's no need to only do this
>>> when the SD controller is enabled, is there?
>>
>> Half of these regs are in the SD controller register space
>> (sdmemcmpctl and autocalcfg), and get reset when the controller gets
>> reset (mmc_reset). So they need to be set each time a reset occurs. It
>> makes sense to keep the GP SDIOCFG writes here, too.
>>
>> As to where the pad_init_mmc function belongs, it is SoC-specific,
>> yes. T20 doesn't need it (no sdmemcmpctl or autocalcfg regs on T20
>> SDMMC), and T30 and T114 use slightly different bits/values for GP
>> SDIOCFG and sdmemcmpctl/autocalcfg. But the differences are small
>> enough that I thought this routine should be placed in a common area,
>> and not duplicated for each SoC, so I put it here.
>>
>> Do you have a suggestion of where it would be better placed?
>
> For the pinmux registers, I think they should be programmed by the
> pinmux driver at the same time as the rest of the pinmux is programmed.
Technically, they're not pinmux registers (PINMUX_AUX_ space), but GP
regs (APB_MISC_GP_ space). Since the pinmux _code_ (no pinmux driver
is used in Tegra U-Boot) for T30 is just a large table slam, I don't
think it makes sense to add GP pad reg writes there. These pads need
to be tuned when you've got a board w/an SD-card device hanging off of
them. So it makes sense to have these 2 register writes here in
pad_init_mmc(). I can take out the SDMMC1/3 test and just write both
SDIO1CFG and SDIO3CFG, since the values are the same.
>
> For the SD registers, I guess we need to program them from the SD driver
> as you say, but need to add some more properties to the DT in order to
> parameterize this.
Why don't we get this in so we can move forward, and when there's a
kernel version of these params in the DT files, I can port it over.

I've got the compatible string changed to just 'nvidia,tegra30-sdhci'
in the dtsi file, and I've changed the pad_init_mmc() code to use the
mmc_id (PERIPH_ID_SDMMCx) instead of the base addresses to check for
an SDIO port before setting the pad config regs. I'll send that up as
V2 of the patchset, probably tomorrow.

Tom


More information about the U-Boot mailing list