Re: [RESEND 1/2] usb: ehci-exynos: Make provision for vdd regulators
From: Vivek Gautam
Date: Mon Jun 08 2015 - 05:09:45 EST
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 7:40 AM
To: "Anand Moon" <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>; "Rob Herring"
<robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Pawel Moll" <pawel.moll@xxxxxxx>; "Mark Rutland"
<mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>; "Ian Campbell" <ijc+devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
"Kumar Gala" <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Kukjin Kim" <kgene@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Alan
Stern" <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Vivek Gautam" <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
"Felipe Balbi" <balbi@xxxxxx>
Cc: <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Jingoo Han" <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RESEND 1/2] usb: ehci-exynos: Make provision for vdd
regulators
On 07.06.2015 22:20, Anand Moon wrote:
Facilitate getting required 3.3V and 1.0V VDD supply for
EHCI controller on Exynos.
With the patches for regulators' nodes merged in 3.15:
c8c253f ARM: dts: Add regulator entries to smdk5420
275dcd2 ARM: dts: add max77686 pmic node for smdk5250,
the exynos systems turn on only minimal number of regulators.
Until now, the VDD regulator supplies were either turned on
by the bootloader, or the regulators were enabled by default
in the kernel, so that the controller drivers did not need to
care about turning on these regulators on their own.
This was rather bad about these controller drivers.
So ensuring now that the controller driver requests the necessary
VDD regulators (if available, unless there are direct VDD rails),
and enable them so as to make them working.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Initial version of this patch was part of following series, though
they are not dependent on each other, resubmitting after rebasing.
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-June/266418.html
So you just took Vivek's patch along with all the credits... That is not
how we usually do this.
I would expect that rebasing a patch won't change the author unless this
is fine with Vivek.
---
.../devicetree/bindings/usb/exynos-usb.txt | 2 +
drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c | 55
+++++++++++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/exynos-usb.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/exynos-usb.txt
index 9b4dbe3..776fa03 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/exynos-usb.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/exynos-usb.txt
@@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ Required properties:
Optional properties:
- samsung,vbus-gpio: if present, specifies the GPIO that
needs to be pulled up for the bus to be powered.
+ - vdd33-supply: handle to 3.3V Vdd supply regulator for the controller.
+ - vdd10-supply: handle to 1.0V Vdd supply regulator for the controller.
Example:
diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c
b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c
index df538fd..4f8f9d2 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
#include <linux/phy/phy.h>
#include <linux/platform_device.h>
+#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
#include <linux/usb.h>
#include <linux/usb/hcd.h>
@@ -45,6 +46,8 @@ static struct hc_driver __read_mostly
exynos_ehci_hc_driver;
struct exynos_ehci_hcd {
struct clk *clk;
struct phy *phy[PHY_NUMBER];
+ struct regulator *vdd33;
+ struct regulator *vdd10;
};
#define to_exynos_ehci(hcd) (struct exynos_ehci_hcd
*)(hcd_to_ehci(hcd)->priv)
@@ -170,7 +173,27 @@ static int exynos_ehci_probe(struct platform_device
*pdev)
err = exynos_ehci_get_phy(&pdev->dev, exynos_ehci);
if (err)
- goto fail_clk;
+ goto fail_regulator1;
+
+ exynos_ehci->vdd33 = devm_regulator_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "vdd33");
+ if (!IS_ERR(exynos_ehci->vdd33)) {
+ err = regulator_enable(exynos_ehci->vdd33);
+ if (err) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev,
+ "Failed to enable 3.3V Vdd supply\n");
+ goto fail_regulator1;
+ }
+ }
+
+ exynos_ehci->vdd10 = devm_regulator_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "vdd10");
+ if (!IS_ERR(exynos_ehci->vdd10)) {
+ err = regulator_enable(exynos_ehci->vdd10);
+ if (err) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev,
+ "Failed to enable 1.0V Vdd supply\n");
+ goto fail_regulator2;
+ }
+ }
skip_phy:
@@ -231,6 +254,10 @@ fail_add_hcd:
fail_io:
clk_disable_unprepare(exynos_ehci->clk);
fail_clk:
+ regulator_disable(exynos_ehci->vdd10);
+fail_regulator2:
+ regulator_disable(exynos_ehci->vdd33);
if (!IS_ERR()).
+fail_regulator1:
usb_put_hcd(hcd);
return err;
}
@@ -246,6 +273,11 @@ static int exynos_ehci_remove(struct platform_device
*pdev)
clk_disable_unprepare(exynos_ehci->clk);
+ if (!IS_ERR(exynos_ehci->vdd33))
+ regulator_disable(exynos_ehci->vdd33);
+ if (!IS_ERR(exynos_ehci->vdd10))
+ regulator_disable(exynos_ehci->vdd10);
+
usb_put_hcd(hcd);
return 0;
@@ -268,6 +300,11 @@ static int exynos_ehci_suspend(struct device *dev)
clk_disable_unprepare(exynos_ehci->clk);
+ if (!IS_ERR(exynos_ehci->vdd33))
+ regulator_disable(exynos_ehci->vdd33);
+ if (!IS_ERR(exynos_ehci->vdd10))
+ regulator_disable(exynos_ehci->vdd10);
+
Is EHCI a wakeup source? If yes then how disabling regulators during
suspend affects waking up process?
From my knowledge of Exynos5 USB controller, EHCI could not be used as the
wake up source
for suspend.
That's the reason we tried this approach of gating the regulator supplies to
the controller during
suspend.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
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/