On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 05:49:53PM +0530, skakit@codeaurora.org wrote:

Hi Matthias,

On 2020-08-19 21:43, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 07:19:25PM +0530, skakit@codeaurora.org wrote:

quoted

On 2020-08-17 23:31, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 09:28:01AM +0530, satya priya wrote:

quoted

Add sleep pin ctrl for BT uart, and also change the bias
configuration to match Bluetooth module.

Signed-off-by: satya priya <redacted>
---
Changes in V2:
 - This patch adds sleep state for BT UART. Newly added in V2.

 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts | 42
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts

b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts
index 26cc491..bc919f2 100644

--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts

@@ -469,20 +469,50 @@

 &qup_uart3_default {
 	pinconf-cts {
-		/*
-		 * Configure a pull-down on 38 (CTS) to match the pull of
-		 * the Bluetooth module.
-		 */
+		/* Configure no pull on 38 (CTS) to match Bluetooth module */

Has the pull from the Bluetooth module been removed or did the previous
config
incorrectly claim that the Bluetooth module has a pull-down?

The previous config was incorrect, so we corrected it to match the
pull of
BT.

The pull config of the BT controller varies depending on its state,
could
you clarify which state you intend to match?

Since this line is driven by BT SoC, they could change their pull(although
it's less likely). Recently on cherokee we worked with BT team and came to
an agreement to keep no-pull from our side in order to not conflict with
their pull in any state.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

 		pins = "gpio38";
+		bias-disable;
+	};
+
+	pinconf-rts {
+		/* We'll drive 39 (RTS), so configure pull-down */
+		pins = "gpio39";
+		drive-strength = <2>;
 		bias-pull-down;
+	};
+
+	pinconf-tx {
+		/* We'll drive 40 (TX), so no pull */

The rationales for RTS and TX contradict each other. According to the
comment
the reason to configure a pull-down on RTS is that it is driven by the
host.
Then for TX the reason to configure no pull is that it is driven by the
host.

Please make sure the comments *really* describe the rationale, otherwise
they
are just confusing.

The rationale for RTS is that we don't want it to be floating and
want to
make sure that it is pulled down, to receive bytes. Will modify the
comment
mentioning the same.

Could you clarify what you mean with "to receive bytes"?

When we keep no-pull(floating), sometimes it may be pulled high and UART
flow will be turned off(RFR_NOT_READY), due to this BT SoC wont be able to
send data even though host is ready.

I'm a bit at a loss here, about two things:

RTS is an output pin controlled by the UART. IIUC if the UART port is active
and hardware flow control is enabled the RTS signal is either driven to high
or low, but not floating.

Now lets assume I'm wrong with the above and RTS can be floating. We only want
the BT SoC to send data when the host UART is ready to receive them, right?
RTS is an active low signal, hence by configuring it as a pull-down the BT
SoC can send data regardless of whether the host UART actually asserts RTS,
so the host UART may not be ready to receive it. I would argue that if there
is really such a thing as a floating RTS signal then it should have a pull-up,
to prevent the BT SoC from sending data at any time.

I'm not an expert in UART communication and pinconf, so it could be that I
got something wrong, but as of now it seems to me that no pull is the correct
config for RTS.