Re: [PATCH 00/16] Add initial USB support for the Renesas RZ/G3S SoC

[claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev>]

On 03.09.2024 13:35, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 at 12:32, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>
>>>> If not, there are two other options that can be considered I think.
>>>> *) Using the genpd on/off notifiers, to really allow the consumer
>>>> driver of the reset-control to know when the PM domain gets turned
>>>> on/off.
>>>> **) Move the entire reset handling into the PM domain provider, as it
>>>> obviously knows when the domain is getting turned on/off.
>>>
>>> This option is what I've explored, tested on my side.
>>>
>>> I explored it in 2 ways:
>>>
>>> 1/ SYSC modeled as an individual PM domain provider (this is more
>>>    appropriate to how HW manual described the hardware) with this the PHY
>>>    reset DT node would have to get 2 PM domains handlers (one for the
>>>    current PM domain provider and the other one for SYSC):
>>>
>>> +               phyrst: usbphy-ctrl@11e00000 {
>>> +                       compatible = "renesas,r9a08g045-usbphy-ctrl";
>>> +                       reg = <0 0x11e00000 0 0x10000>;
>>> +                       clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD R9A08G045_USB_PCLK>;
>>> +                       resets = <&cpg R9A08G045_USB_PRESETN>;
>>> +                       power-domain-names = "cpg", "sysc";
>>> +                       power-domains = <&cpg R9A08G045_PD_USB_PHY>, <&sysc
>>> R9A08G045_SYSC_PD_USB>;
>>> +                       #reset-cells = <1>;
>>> +                       status = "disabled";
>>> +
>>> +                       usb0_vbus_otg: regulator-vbus {
>>> +                               regulator-name = "vbus";
>>> +                       };
>>> +               };
>>> +
>>
>> According to what you have described earlier/above, modelling the SYSC
>> as a PM domain provider seems like a better description of the HW to
>> me. Although, as I said earlier, if you prefer the reset approach, I
>> would not object to that.
> 
> Following the discussion I believe I should take this back. If I
> understand correctly, SYSC signal seems best to be modelled as a
> reset.
> 
>  Although, it looks like the USB PM domain provider should rather be
> the consumer of that reset, instead of having the reset being consumed
> by the consumers of the USB PM domain.

The PM domain provider for USB is the provider for the rest of IPs. To work
like this the SYSC these signals should be handled in the USB domains power
on/off function. It's not impossible to have it implemented like this but
it will complicate a bit the code, AFAICT. This will not describe the
hardware, also.

With the information that we had up to yesterday, the connection b/w HW
blocks was something as follows:

                 USB area
              +--------------------------+
      sig     | PHY -> USB controller X  |
SYSC -------->|  ^                       |
              |  |                       |
              | PHY reset                |
              +--------------------------+

In this implementation the SYSC signal was connected to PHY reset block as
it is the root of the devices used in the USB setup and no USB
functionality can exist w/o the PHY reset being setup.

There is a new information arrived just yesterday from hardware team saying
this about SYSC signals: "When turning off USB PHY and PCIe PHY, if they
are not controlled, PHY may break" which may means that it is just
connected to the PHYs not to the USB area/region or PCIe area/region as
initially expressed in HW manual.

With that the HW connection b/w the USB devices and SYSC might become
something like:

                 USB area
              +--------------------------+
     sig   +--->PHY -> USB controller X  |
SYSC ------+  |  ^                       |
              |  |                       |
              | PHY reset                |
              +--------------------------+

I haven't got the chance to test this topology, though.

With this new information would you be OK to still have it as a reset
signal and connected only to the PHY driver ?

Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea

> 
> Did that make sense?
> 
> [...]
> 
> Kind regards
> Uffe