On 2018-05-17 13:50, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:11:02PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote:
On 05/16/2018 01:43 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:24:07PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote:
On 05/15/2018 09:30 AM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:28:04PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote:
On 2018-05-11 13:14, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote:
On 2018-05-10 19:49, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:04:21AM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote:
On 05/09/2018 02:49 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 09:10:13PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote:
On 05/08/2018 04:25 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 11:19:40PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote:
Even so, when the mux driver "set" function is called, it will just get the
mode argument but since the mode (TYPEC_STATE_...) is overlapping for different
AMs if I understand your proposal correctly, the mux also needs to know what AM
Does this imply that the mux set function signature need to change?
My plan was actually to propose we get rid of the current mux handling
(just leave the orientation switch) in favour of the notifications I'm
introducing with the type-c bus for the alternate modes. The current
mux handling is definitely not enough, and does not work in every
scenario, like also you pointed out.
So, the mux need to subscribe to each svid:mode pair it is interested in using
typec_altmode_register_notifier() and then use those callbacks to switch the
signals to the connector. And a driver for an off-the-shelf mux device could
the translation between svid:mode pairs and mux device specific control
of/acpi properties. Right?
Yes. That is the plan. Would it work for you?
I think so. I'll give it a go. When about do you think you'll post the next
of your RFC? Or do you have an updated series available somewhere public?
I'll try to put together and post the next version tomorrow.
My original plan was actually to use just the notifications with the
muxes, but one thing to consider with the notifications is that in
practice we have to increment the ref count for the alt mode devices
when ever something registers a notifier.
To me that does not feel ideal. The dependency should go the other way
around in case of the muxes. That is why I liked the separate API and
handling for the muxes felt better, as it will do just that. The mux
is then a "service" that the port driver can as for, and if it gets a
handle to a mux, the mux will have its ref count incremented.
So I think fixing the mux API would perhaps be better after all.
So, we're back to a mux API similar to the current one, where:
- the port driver and the mux driver are connected through "graph"
- alt mode driver finds its port mux using the typec class mux api
- the mux mode setting function arguments now include both svid and mode
I like that.
One thought that popped up again is if we, somewhere down the line,
will see some super device that support many different alternate modes
on the same port and therefore will need to have multiple mux devices?
However I think the mux api could be extended (later on) to support some
aggregate mux device that manages multiple physical devices.
If we simply had always a mux for every alternate mode, that would not
be a problem. So the port would have its own mux, and every supported
alternate mode also had its own. I think that removes the need to deal
with the svid:mode when using the muxes, as they are already tied to a
specific alternate modes, right? With a single mux device, for example
pi3usb30532, the driver just needs to register a mux for the port and
separate mux for DP, but I don't think that's a huge problem.
Hmm... As an hypothetical example I have written a driver for another mux
from TI and according to its data sheet:
The HD3SS460 is a generic analog differential
passive switch that can work for any high speed
interface applications as long as it is biased at a
common mode voltage range of 0-2V and has
differential signaling with differential amplitude up to
What I am thinking is that it e.g. would be possible to use this/a mux with
2ch DP + 2ch something else (HDMI?, ThunderBolt?, ???). The problem here is
that it is a general mux device so the driver writer does not know what types of
muxes to register. I guess it could also be configured using properties but that
would be very complicated.
Why? All the mux driver needs to get from device properties is the
SVID and the mode.
Sigh... Again, if the same mux handles signals for more than one alternate mode
the driver won't know what alternate mode is intended if it only receives the
connector state which use overlapping numbers for different alternate modes.
You are missing the point. We are now registering separate struct
typec_mux for every alt mode. The ->set callback will need to be
implemented separately for every alt mode.
So in case of TI HD3SS460, we need to initially register a struct
typec_mux for DP and implement a function for the ->set callback for
DP only. If we later need to support another alt mode with that mux
(HDMI perhaps), we need to register second struct typec_mux and
implement separate function for that alt mode alone and point the
->set callback of the second struct typec_mux to that.
No, I'm not missing the point... At least not that one :)
But I think you are missing my point that a driver for a general
purpose mux device will end up having to register a struct typec_mux
and implement a ->set function for every possible alternate mode
that eventually will exist (and can be used with that mux).
OK, we are on the same page. So back to my question. I'll rephrase:
How would separate ->set functions differ from delivering the
SVID:mode on top of the SVID specific connector state to the mux? You
still need to handle every alternate mode separately in the mux
My idea, as I tried to explain before, is to use properties for mapping
mux device specific states to svid:mode:state. The mux driver would not
need to know anything about alternate modes, the responsibility would be
with the system architect to get the mapping right in firmware.
OK, I understand. I'm a little bit scared about that kind of mappings.
At least the connector state value we are dealing with here is Linux
kernel specific index number, so I don't know if it's OK to get that
from a device property. I wonder if string identifiers would be more
acceptable for hardware descriptions?
Yes, something in the line of:
svid = "displayport";
state = "pin-assy-c";
setting = "somethingsomething"; // device driver specific
Then the svid and state strings could be mapped to numbers by typec/class API
and setting strings by the mux driver internally and the mux driver will act on
svid:state info from the partner driver(s) tied to the mux.
Strings or numbers, I guess we would need to document somewhere to
which alternate mode connector state a number/string is mapped to. I
don't know if OF bindings is enough?
That's what I had in mind.
Btw. I'm not convinced we would ever get this information from ACPI
tables on devices targeted for windows, but let's not worry about that
Ah, I admit I did not consider this case. Being used to embeddeed/devicetree
I just imagined the hardware description as something you are always in control
I'm afraid I have no idea about this.
BR // Mats
In any case, I'm not against your idea.
I doubt that HD3SS460 will (or even can) be used with anything else
except DP. Maybe with HDMI. It definitely will not be usable with all
alternate modes. Realistically, I think we are talking about two, max
three alternate modes any mux driver will ever need to handle.
I'm not so sure. Time will tell.
And using HD3SS460 as an example, there are multiple ways to connect the
DP signals to the MUX that the hw designer may want to take advantage of
to get the best possible lay-out
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html