On 02.03.2018 14:13, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 08:11:29AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> +2. USB-C connector attached to CC controller (s2mm005), HS lines routed
>> +to companion PMIC (max77865), SS lines to USB3 PHY and SBU to DisplayPort.
>> +DisplayPort video lines are routed to the connector via SS mux in USB3 PHY.
>> +
>> +ccic: s2mm005@33 {
>> + ...
>> + usb_con: connector {
>> + compatible = "usb-c-connector";
>> + label = "USB-C";
> Is this child node really necessary? There will never be more then
> one connector per CC line.
But there can be more connectors/cc-lines per IC, for example EZ-PD CCG5[1].
[1]:
http://www.cypress.com/products/ez-pd-ccg5-two-port-usb-type-c-and-power-delivery
>
> We should prefer device_graph* functions over of_graph* and
I guess you mean fwnode_graph* functions.
> acpi_graph* functions in the drivers so we don't have to handle the
> same thing multiple times with separate APIs. Is it still possible if
> there is that connector child node?
Bindings proposed here are OF bindings, I suppose the most important is
to follow OF specification and guidelines and these bindings tries to
follow it.
It looks like it should not be a problem for fwnode framework to handle
such bindings, but it is just my guess. I have not seen any fwnode*
specification I am not sure what is the real purpose of this framework,
but it seems to be just in-kernel abstraction for different firmware
standards (OF, ACPI), so even if it lacks at the moment some
functionality it should not be a barrier for OF bindings.
Regards
Andrzej
>
>> + ports {
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>> +
>> + port@0 {
>> + reg = <0>;
>> + usb_con_hs: endpoint {
>> + remote-endpoint = <&max77865_usbc_hs>;
>> + };
>> + };
>> + port@1 {
>> + reg = <1>;
>> + usb_con_ss: endpoint {
>> + remote-endpoint = <&usbdrd_phy_ss>;
>> + };
>> + };
>> + port@2 {
>> + reg = <2>;
>> + usb_con_sbu: endpoint {
>> + remote-endpoint = <&dp_aux>;
>> + };
>> + };
>> + };
>> + };
>> +};
>
> Thanks,
>
