Re: [PATCH v2] dts: rockpro64: Remove usb regulator-always-on

[Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>]

Hello Shantur,

On 2024-01-21 23:12, Shantur Rathore wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 2:47 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> wrote:
>> On 2024-01-08 13:29, Heiko Stübner wrote:
>> > Am Montag, 8. Januar 2024, 13:11:17 CET schrieb Shantur Rathore:
>> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:50 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> wrote:
>> >> > On 2024-01-04 10:44, Shantur Rathore wrote:
>> >> > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 10:08 PM Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
>> >> > >> Am Freitag, 22. Dezember 2023, 15:16:16 CET schrieb Shantur Rathore:
>> >> > >> > USB port regulators should be controlled by PHYs
>> >> > >> > so we remove always-on property and let PHYs manage the
>> >> > >> > regulator.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > phy-supply isn't sconfugred for the TypeC port and now that we are
>> >> > >>                 ^^ configured ?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> > removing regulator-always-on, we need to fix the phy-supply
>> >> > >> > so the PHYs are able to turn power to type-c port.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Series-version: 2
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Shantur Rathore <i@shantur.com>
>> >> > >> > ---
>> >> > >> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-rockpro64.dtsi | 3 +--
>> >> > >> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-rockpro64.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-rockpro64.dtsi
>> >> > >> > index bca2b50e0a..f7273f7990 100644
>> >> > >> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-rockpro64.dtsi
>> >> > >> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-rockpro64.dtsi
>> >> > >> > @@ -192,7 +192,6 @@ vcc5v0_host: vcc5v0-host-regulator {
>> >> > >> >               pinctrl-names = "default";
>> >> > >> >               pinctrl-0 = <&vcc5v0_host_en>;
>> >> > >> >               regulator-name = "vcc5v0_host";
>> >> > >> > -             regulator-always-on;
>> >> > >> >               vin-supply = <&vcc5v0_usb>;
>> >> > >> >       };
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > @@ -203,7 +202,6 @@ vcc5v0_typec: vcc5v0-typec-regulator {
>> >> > >> >               pinctrl-names = "default";
>> >> > >> >               pinctrl-0 = <&vcc5v0_typec_en>;
>> >> > >> >               regulator-name = "vcc5v0_typec";
>> >> > >> > -             regulator-always-on;
>> >> > >> >               vin-supply = <&vcc5v0_usb>;
>> >> > >> >       };
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > @@ -859,6 +857,7 @@ &u2phy0 {
>> >> > >> >       status = "okay";
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >       u2phy0_otg: otg-port {
>> >> > >> > +             phy-supply = <&vcc5v0_typec>;
>> >> > >> >               status = "okay";
>> >> > >> >       };
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Just to explain for me, what is supplying the "other" OTG port
>> >> > >>         u2phy1_otg: otg-port {}
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> in u2phy1 ... this one is status okay, but does not have any phy
>> >> > >> supply?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > In RockPro64 there is only 1 USB-C OTG port and the other port
>> >> > > is a USB-3.0 port.
>> >> > > To be honest, I am not 100% sure how this all works, as I understand
>> >> > > the USB3.0 port is wired to the second TypeC Phy.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Maybe Dragan has more info on this.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll have it checked and tested in detail, of course, but I have to
>> >> > recover from this nasty flu first.  Unfortunately, it has rendeded me
>> >> > unable to even think straight.
>> >>
>> >> Hope you feel better soon.
>> >> It would be awesome if we can get this in while the current merge
>> >> window is open.
>> >
>> > just a small comment regarding timing. All regular development changes
>> > need to be finished and in linux-next _before_ the merge-window opens.
>> >
>> > As this is not a fix it will go to 6.9 anyway - hence no need to rush.
>> 
>> Ah, yes, I keep forgetting that the current merge window basically 
>> goes
>> one more kernel version into the past. :)  Thank you for the
>> clarification.
> 
> Hope you are feeling better.
> Just to update, my patch has been dropped in u-boot in expectation of
> it being fixed here.

Yes, I saw that message on the U-Boot mailing list.  Frankly, that's the
usual way, i.e. having the DT issues fixed in the Linux kernel first, 
and
then synced back to U-Boot.

> Do you foresee it happening anytime soon?

Unfortunately, I've been unable to focus well enough to be able to work 
on
this, as a result of still recovering from the _nasty_ flu. :(  Though, 
I've
been also getting gradually better, thankfully, so while crossing all my
fingers and knocking on wood at the same time, :) I'd dare to say that 
I'm
expecting to be able to work on this in the next few days.

I apologize for the delays.  Bear with me, please! :)