On 2018-06-13 15:51, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 07:16:03PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote:
On 2018-06-07 14:01, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 09:22:56AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 06-06-18 23:36, Mats Karrman wrote:
Hello Gentlemen,
I'm trying to get my head around USB role switches in connection with Type-C
ports
and device-trees. So far I have not found much documentation, e.g. there are no
device-tree bindings documented and really no good examples in existing device
trees, although there has been some attempts, e.g. [1] and [2]. Anyway, so I
send
you a couple of questions instead:
1) tcpm uses the port device struct to find a single usb_role_switch but there
is
room for three USB busses in the Type-C connector; one high speed and two (?)
super-
speed. These would not all come from the same controller (there might even be
separate controllers for host and device mode for each bus).
I believe USB 3.2 spec in practice says that the two superspeed
"lanes" must to go to the same controller. Only one will be used for
link training etc. The second one is pulled in after certain state of
enumeration has been passed.
So we may theoretically have two controllers to deal with, one for
USB2 and another for USB3, but not three.
But in any case, let's not try to fix theoretical problems that may
never exist.
AFAIK the 2nd superspeed USB bus is never used as such. There really is only 1
USB bus on the Type-C connector, the combined USB-2 + the 1st superspeed bus,
physically these are 2 separate busses but that is purely for compatibility
reasons, logically there really only is 1 bus, just like a superspeed Type-A
connector has both busses physically but logically represents a single bus/port.
The case I am working on now only have a single USB2 otg controller so it should
be possible to make that driver register a role switch but for other cases?
I guess theoretically a device could use separate role switches / muxes for
the USB-2 and USB-3 busses, but that would be weird. So lets cross that bridge
when we reach it.
I imagine it would be possible to create a composite driver as a proxy for all
role
switches but that would probably be different for every platform/product - not
very elegant. Could the role switch infrastructure be extended to handle
arbitrary
sets of coordinated switches?
As said lets cross that bridge when we reach it.
Agreed.
OK, I'm buying what you're saying. After reading some manuals for USB3
controllers
and USB3 equipped SoC's I realize that most USB3 controllers seem to also
support
USB2. Makes things easier, although not as flexible as I imagined.
One thing that led me astray was the comment for usb_role_switch_register() and
the
separate device struct pointers for usb2/usb3/udc in the usb_role_switch_desc
struct.
Still not totally clear to me what they are for?
They are not really used for anything. Well, not yet at least.
Even if there is only a single physical controller, in case of host,
there will be separate logical devices representing the USB2 bus the
USB3 bus. UDC is just UDC, the device is the physical controller.
I added those usb2/usb3/udc handles to the structure because a long
time a go somebody requested that we should have a way in user space
to see the USB buses we are dealing with somehow. So the idea was
never to actually use those in the code. That's why I'm talking about
symlinks in the TODO comment.
OK, thanks
But if those are not useful, or confusing, I'm happy to drop them.
2) How should the connection between the Type-C port and the switches best be
expressed in a device tree? Using graph I presume, but should it be mixed into
the
existing "usb-connector" or should this be a separate block?
I don't know?
I'm not super comfortable proposing things for these bindings because
my knowledge of DT is a bit limited. I mostly work with ACPI based
platforms.
I'm not even completely sure device graph is usable in our case,
though I pretty sure it is.
I think it is unfortunate that the graph use numeric addresses that need to be
fixed by documentation and already I see problems with the current assignment
(0=HS, 1=SS, 2=SBU), e.g. if the host and device mode are handled by different
controllers. Graph do support multiple endpoints for one port but then we have
another level of magic numbers which does not exactly make things easier
(e.g. 0=dual or host controller, 1=device controller, 2=mode switch).
The graph stuff is more Heikki's specialty so I will let Heikki answer this.
I'm not really a graph expert. It is just the only tool in kernel I
can see that allows us to link together all these different components
in HW description, and which has support for both DT and ACPI in Linux
kernel. That is the only reason I've talked about it.
One of the motivations for the device connection API was that it hides
the actual method these components are linked together in HW
description. What ever the method is, device graph or something else
(we can support different ways), the drivers don't need to know about
it.
Ahh, this is complicated and the lack of examples makes it a bit hard to
digest. Is it your expectation that the OF graph parsing code will be calling
device_connection_add() for every graph connection found in the device
tree or maybe for every connection with an "id" property?
No, the idea is that we parse the graph in
device_connection_find_match().
I hacked away to see if I could make some sense of this but I didn't get far.
Do you mean that the device_connection_find_match() function should be
extended with code for finding matches in devicetrees as well?
I tried and ended up creating temporary device_connection instances just
to try to satisfy the match function you supply from usb_role_switch_get(),
only the OF graph connection does not have a name to compare with.
(Ugh, just realized that the "reg" numeric value of the endpoint node is
put in the "id" field of the endpoint struct, bad luck...).
Isn't the "compatible" property the one that should be used in this
case? The remote endpoint just has to have compatible property
matching the con_id, no?
By endpoint you mean the OF node named "endpoint" as described by graph
documentation or something else?
I have not seen or heard of any "endpoint" nodes having "compatible" properties,
only the nodes containing the "port(s)" nodes. The USB controller node
won't have compatible set to "usb-role-switch" so which node do you mean?
My worry is that currently there is no function to convert a fwnode
to device. With ACPI it is possible already, but only to the first
device bind to the node (ACPI device node can be bind to multiple
devices). I don't think there is a function to convert OF node to
device.
We could of course workaround this problem and add fwnode member(s) to
the device_lookup structure. The callers would then have to check is
fwnode or the endpoint (device) name being used, which is not ideal
IMO.
"device_connection" structure?
BR // Mats
--
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
