Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: add phy support for sdhci-of-arasan | From | Michal Simek <> | Date | Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:30:51 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
On 10/20/2015 09:05 AM, Shawn Lin wrote: > This patch adds Generic PHY access for sdhci-of-arasan. Driver > can get PHY handler from dt-binding, and power-on/init the PHY. > Also we add pm ops for PHY here if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is enabled. > Currently, it's just mandatory for arasan,sdhci-5.1. > > Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com> > > Serise-changes: 3 > - remove phy_init/exit for suspend/resume > - adjust phy_int/power_on seq to make code more reasonable > - simplify suspend/resume_phy > > Serise-changes: 2 > - Keep phy as a mandatory requirement for arasan,sdhci-5.1 > > --- > > Changes in v2: None > > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 87 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c > index 75379cb..85bd0f9d 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ > > #include <linux/module.h> > #include <linux/of_device.h> > +#include <linux/phy/phy.h> > #include "sdhci-pltfm.h" > > #define SDHCI_ARASAN_CLK_CTRL_OFFSET 0x2c > @@ -35,6 +36,7 @@ > */ > struct sdhci_arasan_data { > struct clk *clk_ahb; > + struct phy *phy; > }; > > static unsigned int sdhci_arasan_get_timeout_clock(struct sdhci_host *host) > @@ -70,6 +72,42 @@ static struct sdhci_pltfm_data sdhci_arasan_pdata = { > > #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > /** > + * sdhci_arasan_suspend_phy - Suspend phy method for the driver > + * @phy: Handler of phy structure > + * Returns 0 on success and error value on error > + * > + * Put the phy in a deactive state. > + */
This is not kernel-doc format. Try this and fix it.
./scripts/kernel-doc -man -v drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c > /dev/null
> +static int sdhci_arasan_suspend_phy(struct phy *phy) > +{ > + int ret = 0; > + > + ret = phy_power_off(phy); > + if (ret) > + phy_power_on(phy);
I am curious about this logic. If power_off fails I would expect that phy could still have power_on. Or not?
Thanks, Michal
| |