Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: Convert __clk_get_name(hw-clk) to clk_hw_get_name(hw)
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote: Use the provider based method to get a clock's name so that we can get rid of the clk member in struct clk_hw one day. Mostly converted with the following coccinelle script. @@ struct clk_hw *E; @@ -__clk_get_name(E-clk) +clk_hw_get_name(E) Cc: Heiko Stuebner he...@sntech.de Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki s.nawro...@samsung.com Cc: Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com Cc: Peter De Schrijver pdeschrij...@nvidia.com Cc: Prashant Gaikwad pgaik...@nvidia.com Cc: Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org Cc: Thierry Reding thierry.red...@gmail.com Cc: Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com Cc: Tero Kristo t-kri...@ti.com Cc: Ulf Hansson ulf.hans...@linaro.org Cc: Sebastian Hesselbarth sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com Cc: Andrew Bresticker abres...@chromium.org Cc: Ezequiel Garcia ezequiel.gar...@imgtec.com Cc: Ralf Baechle r...@linux-mips.org Cc: Kevin Cernekee cerne...@chromium.org Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+rene...@glider.be Cc: Ulrich Hecht ulrich.hecht+rene...@gmail.com Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-rockc...@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-samsung-...@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-te...@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org drivers/clk/pistachio/clk-pll.c | 4 ++-- For Pistachio, Acked-by: Andrew Bresticker abres...@chromium.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] USB: OTG/DRD Core functionality
Hi Roger,
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Roger Quadros rog...@ti.com wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 13/07/15 22:14, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
Hi Roger,
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Roger Quadros rog...@ti.com wrote:
Usage model:
---
- The OTG controller device is assumed to be the parent of
the host and gadget controller. It must call usb_otg_register()
before populating the host and gadget devices so that the OTG
core is aware that it is an OTG device before the host gadget
register. The OTG controller must provide struct otg_fsm_ops *
which will be called by the OTG core depending on OTG bus state.
I'm wondering if the requirement that the OTG controller be the parent
of the USB host/device-controllers makes sense. For some context, I'm
working on adding dual-role support for Tegra210, specifically on a
system with USB Type-C. On Tegra, the USB host-controller and USB
device-controller are two separate IP blocks (XUSB host and XUSB
device) with another, separate, IP block (XUSB padctl) for the USB PHY
and OTG support. In the non-Type-C case, your OTG framework could
work well, though it's debatable as to whether or not the XUSB padctl
device should be a parent to the XUSB host/device-controller devices
(currently it isn't - it's just a PHY provider). But in the Type-C
case, it's an off-chip embedded controller that determines the
dual-role status of the Type-C port, so the above requirement doesn't
make sense at all.
My idea was to have the OTG/DRD controller explicitly specify its host
and device controllers, so in DT, something like:
otg-controller {
...
device-controller = usb_device;
host-controller = usb_host;
...
};
usb_device: usb-device@ {
...
};
usb_host: usb-host@... {
...
};
What do you think?
I agree that we need to support your use case but how to do it
is not yet clear to me.
In your above example the otg controller knows what are the host
and gadget controllers but the host/gadget devices don't
know who is their otg controller.
So the problem is that when usb_otg_register_hcd/gadget() is called
we need to get a handle to the otg controller.
One solution I see is to iterate over the registered otg_controller_list
and check if we match the host/gadget controller in there.
Then there is also a possibility that host/gadget controllers get
registered before the OTG controller. Then we can't know for sure if
the host/gadget controller was meant for dual-role operation or not
and it will resort to single role operation.
Any idea to prevent the above situation?
Maybe we need to add some logic in host/gadget cores to check if the port
is meant for dual-role use and defer probe if OTG controller is not yet
registered?
In the DT case, I think we could add an otg-controller property to
the host and gadget nodes, and in usb_otg_register_{hcd,gadget}()
check for that property and defer probe if the referenced OTG
controller has not yet been registered. Not sure how to indicate that
a host/gadget is meant for dual-role operation on non-DT platforms
though.
Thanks,
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] USB: OTG/DRD Core functionality
Hi Peter, On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Peter Chen peter.c...@freescale.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:14:43PM -0700, Andrew Bresticker wrote: Hi Roger, On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Roger Quadros rog...@ti.com wrote: Usage model: --- - The OTG controller device is assumed to be the parent of the host and gadget controller. It must call usb_otg_register() before populating the host and gadget devices so that the OTG core is aware that it is an OTG device before the host gadget register. The OTG controller must provide struct otg_fsm_ops * which will be called by the OTG core depending on OTG bus state. I'm wondering if the requirement that the OTG controller be the parent of the USB host/device-controllers makes sense. For some context, I'm working on adding dual-role support for Tegra210, specifically on a system with USB Type-C. On Tegra, the USB host-controller and USB device-controller are two separate IP blocks (XUSB host and XUSB device) with another, separate, IP block (XUSB padctl) for the USB PHY and OTG support. In the non-Type-C case, your OTG framework could work well, though it's debatable as to whether or not the XUSB padctl device should be a parent to the XUSB host/device-controller devices (currently it isn't - it's just a PHY provider). But in the Type-C case, it's an off-chip embedded controller that determines the dual-role status of the Type-C port, so the above requirement doesn't make sense at all. Hi Andrew, I think your problem is how to add your core driver to manage device and host functionality together, and once you find how (through padctl/type-c controller) to do it based on current code, it will be clear how to use roger proposal framework at that time. Most of current core drivers, we use extcon driver (through gpio) or USB vbus/id pin (through internal registers) to manager roles. Right, currently I'm modeling the Type-C controller as an extcon device and handle the role-changes in the core drivers, but that doesn't really make sense for the non-Type-C case where we use the XUSB padctl controller and need a full OTG state-machine. Roger's new OTG/DRD framework would fit my situation perfectly since it makes the host/device-controller drivers independent from all the OTG/role-changing logic. The only issue is the requirement that the OTG/DRD controller be the parent device of the host/device controllers. Thanks, Andrew -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] USB: OTG/DRD Core functionality
Hi Roger,
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Roger Quadros rog...@ti.com wrote:
Usage model:
---
- The OTG controller device is assumed to be the parent of
the host and gadget controller. It must call usb_otg_register()
before populating the host and gadget devices so that the OTG
core is aware that it is an OTG device before the host gadget
register. The OTG controller must provide struct otg_fsm_ops *
which will be called by the OTG core depending on OTG bus state.
I'm wondering if the requirement that the OTG controller be the parent
of the USB host/device-controllers makes sense. For some context, I'm
working on adding dual-role support for Tegra210, specifically on a
system with USB Type-C. On Tegra, the USB host-controller and USB
device-controller are two separate IP blocks (XUSB host and XUSB
device) with another, separate, IP block (XUSB padctl) for the USB PHY
and OTG support. In the non-Type-C case, your OTG framework could
work well, though it's debatable as to whether or not the XUSB padctl
device should be a parent to the XUSB host/device-controller devices
(currently it isn't - it's just a PHY provider). But in the Type-C
case, it's an off-chip embedded controller that determines the
dual-role status of the Type-C port, so the above requirement doesn't
make sense at all.
My idea was to have the OTG/DRD controller explicitly specify its host
and device controllers, so in DT, something like:
otg-controller {
...
device-controller = usb_device;
host-controller = usb_host;
...
};
usb_device: usb-device@ {
...
};
usb_host: usb-host@... {
...
};
What do you think?
Thanks,
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
