[PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Valentine Barshak]

PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI device tree entry.

Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts |    7 +++++++
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff -pruN linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts
--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts	2007-10-08 16:29:54.000000000 +0400
+++ linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts	2007-10-08 17:56:05.000000000 +0400
@@ -122,6 +122,13 @@
 			interrupt-map-mask = <ffffffff>;
 		};
 
+		USB1: usb@e0000400 {
+			compatible = "ohci-be";
+			reg = <0 e0000400 60>;
+			interrupt-parent = <&UIC0>;
+			interrupts = <15 8>;
+		};
+
 		POB0: opb {
 		  	compatible = "ibm,opb-440epx", "ibm,opb";
 			#address-cells = <1>;

Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:26:58 +0400
Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com> wrote:

> PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI device tree entry.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com>

I think I saw the OHCI big endian quirk patch go into Linus' tree
recently.  Is that the only patch this one depends on?

josh

> ---
>  arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts |    7 +++++++
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff -pruN linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts	2007-10-08 16:29:54.000000000 +0400
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts	2007-10-08 17:56:05.000000000 +0400
> @@ -122,6 +122,13 @@
>  			interrupt-map-mask = <ffffffff>;
>  		};
> 
> +		USB1: usb@e0000400 {
> +			compatible = "ohci-be";
> +			reg = <0 e0000400 60>;
> +			interrupt-parent = <&UIC0>;
> +			interrupts = <15 8>;
> +		};
> +
>  		POB0: opb {
>  		  	compatible = "ibm,opb-440epx", "ibm,opb";
>  			#address-cells = <1>;
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Valentine Barshak]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:26:58 +0400
> Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com> wrote:
> 
>> PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI device tree entry.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com>
> 
> I think I saw the OHCI big endian quirk patch go into Linus' tree
> recently.  Is that the only patch this one depends on?
> 

Yes, now we only need a dts entry to enable ohci support for 440EP(x),
Valentine.

> josh
> 
>> ---
>>  arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts |    7 +++++++
>>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff -pruN linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts	2007-10-08 16:29:54.000000000 +0400
>> +++ linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sequoia.dts	2007-10-08 17:56:05.000000000 +0400
>> @@ -122,6 +122,13 @@
>>  			interrupt-map-mask = <ffffffff>;
>>  		};
>>
>> +		USB1: usb@e0000400 {
>> +			compatible = "ohci-be";
>> +			reg = <0 e0000400 60>;
>> +			interrupt-parent = <&UIC0>;
>> +			interrupts = <15 8>;
>> +		};
>> +
>>  		POB0: opb {
>>  		  	compatible = "ibm,opb-440epx", "ibm,opb";
>>  			#address-cells = <1>;
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
>> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
>> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:35:09 +0400
Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com> wrote:

> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:26:58 +0400
> > Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI device tree entry.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com>
> > 
> > I think I saw the OHCI big endian quirk patch go into Linus' tree
> > recently.  Is that the only patch this one depends on?
> > 
> 
> Yes, now we only need a dts entry to enable ohci support for 440EP(x),
> Valentine.

Ok.  I'll queue up this patch in a bit.  Thanks.

josh

Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Segher Boessenkool]

> +			compatible = "ohci-be";

Can we fix this please, in the same way as with EHCI?  I.e., the
"compatible" should say it is USB, e.g. "usb-ohci"; and the
"big-endian" quirkiness should be expressed by a property, not by
the "compatible" name (since that would lead to exponential
explosion of all possible combinations of quirks, if nothing else).


Segher

Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Valentine Barshak]

Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> +            compatible = "ohci-be";
> 
> Can we fix this please, in the same way as with EHCI?  I.e., the
> "compatible" should say it is USB, e.g. "usb-ohci"; and the
> "big-endian" quirkiness should be expressed by a property, not by
> the "compatible" name (since that would lead to exponential
> explosion of all possible combinations of quirks, if nothing else).
> 
> 
> Segher
> 
I was thinking about it too.
We need to fix the OHCI OF driver and all its users' dts files (if any).
Actually I also don't see much reason for the 
USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_BE/USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE stuff.
Is this really needed?
Thanks,
Valentine.

Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Dale Farnsworth]

Valentine wrote:
> Actually I also don't see much reason for the 
> USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_BE/USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE stuff.
> Is this really needed?

I think so.  The SOC host controllers are BE and the PCI
host controllers are LE.  Or, do you have an alternative
method of handling both types?

-Dale

Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Valentine Barshak]

Dale Farnsworth wrote:
> Valentine wrote:
>> Actually I also don't see much reason for the 
>> USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_BE/USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE stuff.
>> Is this really needed?
> 
> I think so.  The SOC host controllers are BE and the PCI
> host controllers are LE.  Or, do you have an alternative
> method of handling both types?
> 
> -Dale

Yes, PCI controllers are LE, but do we really need user-selectable 
USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE option, since USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN is selected
by default for USB_OHCI_HCD_PCI?
The USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE/BE stuff is related to PPC OF glue only.
I think it's useless. We should always enable
USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_DESC and USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_MMIO for PPC OF
and the real LE/BE implementation should be selected by the 
corresponding properties in the device tree.
Thanks,
Valentine.

Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Dale Farnsworth]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 03:19:14PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> Dale Farnsworth wrote:
> >Valentine wrote:
> >>Actually I also don't see much reason for the 
> >>USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_BE/USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE stuff.
> >>Is this really needed?
> >
> >I think so.  The SOC host controllers are BE and the PCI
> >host controllers are LE.  Or, do you have an alternative
> >method of handling both types?
> 
> Yes, PCI controllers are LE, but do we really need user-selectable 
> USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE option, since USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN is selected
> by default for USB_OHCI_HCD_PCI?
> The USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE/BE stuff is related to PPC OF glue only.
> I think it's useless. We should always enable
> USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_DESC and USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_MMIO for PPC OF
> and the real LE/BE implementation should be selected by the 
> corresponding properties in the device tree.

I agree that they don't need to be user selectable.  It is far preferable
to deduce their values from existing information, if possible.

-Dale

Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Valentine Barshak]

Dale Farnsworth wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 03:19:14PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
>> Dale Farnsworth wrote:
>>> Valentine wrote:
>>>> Actually I also don't see much reason for the 
>>>> USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_BE/USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE stuff.
>>>> Is this really needed?
>>> I think so.  The SOC host controllers are BE and the PCI
>>> host controllers are LE.  Or, do you have an alternative
>>> method of handling both types?
>> Yes, PCI controllers are LE, but do we really need user-selectable 
>> USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE option, since USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN is selected
>> by default for USB_OHCI_HCD_PCI?
>> The USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE/BE stuff is related to PPC OF glue only.
>> I think it's useless. We should always enable
>> USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_DESC and USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_MMIO for PPC OF
>> and the real LE/BE implementation should be selected by the 
>> corresponding properties in the device tree.
> 
> I agree that they don't need to be user selectable.  It is far preferable
> to deduce their values from existing information, if possible.
> 
> -Dale

This is the original thread:
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/2006-November/025054.html

I think the USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE/BE should be removed.
We can't avoid the slight overhead even using these options, since 
USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_MMIO/DESC should always be anabled for PPC OF and we 
we still enable USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN for USB_OHCI_HCD_PCI even if 
USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE is not set.
Thanks,
Valentine.

Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Dale Farnsworth]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:44:51PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> Dale Farnsworth wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 03:19:14PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> >>Dale Farnsworth wrote:
> >>>Valentine wrote:
> >>>>Actually I also don't see much reason for the 
> >>>>USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_BE/USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE stuff.
> >>>>Is this really needed?
> >>>I think so.  The SOC host controllers are BE and the PCI
> >>>host controllers are LE.  Or, do you have an alternative
> >>>method of handling both types?
> >>Yes, PCI controllers are LE, but do we really need user-selectable 
> >>USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE option, since USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN is selected
> >>by default for USB_OHCI_HCD_PCI?
> >>The USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE/BE stuff is related to PPC OF glue only.
> >>I think it's useless. We should always enable
> >>USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_DESC and USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_MMIO for PPC OF
> >>and the real LE/BE implementation should be selected by the 
> >>corresponding properties in the device tree.
> >
> >I agree that they don't need to be user selectable.  It is far preferable
> >to deduce their values from existing information, if possible.
> >
> >-Dale
> 
> This is the original thread:
> http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/2006-November/025054.html
> 
> I think the USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE/BE should be removed.
> We can't avoid the slight overhead even using these options, since 
> USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_MMIO/DESC should always be anabled for PPC OF and we 
> we still enable USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN for USB_OHCI_HCD_PCI even if 
> USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE is not set.

I believe you are saying that we can select any valid combination
of USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_DESC, USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_MMIO, and
USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN, without using USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_BE and
USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE.  I agree.  It looks like we can get rid of
these last two with zero loss in performance or functionality.

Do you have a patch?

-Dale

Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia USB OHCI DTS entry

[Valentine Barshak]

Dale Farnsworth wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:44:51PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
>> Dale Farnsworth wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 03:19:14PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
>>>> Dale Farnsworth wrote:
>>>>> Valentine wrote:
>>>>>> Actually I also don't see much reason for the 
>>>>>> USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_BE/USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE stuff.
>>>>>> Is this really needed?
>>>>> I think so.  The SOC host controllers are BE and the PCI
>>>>> host controllers are LE.  Or, do you have an alternative
>>>>> method of handling both types?
>>>> Yes, PCI controllers are LE, but do we really need user-selectable 
>>>> USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE option, since USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN is selected
>>>> by default for USB_OHCI_HCD_PCI?
>>>> The USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE/BE stuff is related to PPC OF glue only.
>>>> I think it's useless. We should always enable
>>>> USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_DESC and USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_MMIO for PPC OF
>>>> and the real LE/BE implementation should be selected by the 
>>>> corresponding properties in the device tree.
>>> I agree that they don't need to be user selectable.  It is far preferable
>>> to deduce their values from existing information, if possible.
>>>
>>> -Dale
>> This is the original thread:
>> http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/2006-November/025054.html
>>
>> I think the USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE/BE should be removed.
>> We can't avoid the slight overhead even using these options, since 
>> USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_MMIO/DESC should always be anabled for PPC OF and we 
>> we still enable USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN for USB_OHCI_HCD_PCI even if 
>> USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE is not set.
> 
> I believe you are saying that we can select any valid combination
> of USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_DESC, USB_OHCI_BIG_ENDIAN_MMIO, and
> USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN, without using USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_BE and
> USB_OHCI_HCD_PPC_OF_LE.  I agree.  It looks like we can get rid of
> these last two with zero loss in performance or functionality.
> 
> Do you have a patch?

No I don't have it yet :)
I planed to make, test and submit it a bit later.
Thanks,
Valentine.

> 
> -Dale