From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753229AbcEPIWV (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2016 04:22:21 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]:33921 "EHLO mail-pa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752189AbcEPIWS (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2016 04:22:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:13:26 +0800 From: Peter Chen To: Roger Quadros Cc: Yoshihiro Shimoda , Alan Stern , Rob Herring , "peter.chen@freescale.com" , "balbi@kernel.org" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "dan.j.williams@intel.com" , "jun.li@freescale.com" , "mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com" , "tony@atomide.com" , "Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com" , "abrestic@chromium.org" , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 10/14] usb: otg: add hcd companion support Message-ID: <20160516081326.GC24609@shlinux2.ap.freescale.net> References: <57333DFF.3090609@ti.com> <57343FFC.9090105@ti.com> <57344D7B.3050005@ti.com> <5734737C.6070003@ti.com> <20160516021350.GA24609@shlinux2.ap.freescale.net> <57397E57.8060903@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57397E57.8060903@ti.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:01:27AM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote: > On 16/05/16 05:13, Peter Chen wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:13:48PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 12/05/16 13:31, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>>> From: Roger Quadros > >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 6:32 PM > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> On 12/05/16 11:34, Roger Quadros wrote: > >>>>> On 12/05/16 07:00, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> From: Alan Stern > >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 11:47 PM > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Roger Quadros wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What I mean is if you have 2 EHCI controllers with 2 companion > >>>>>>>>> controllers, don't you need to know which companion goes with which EHCI > >>>>>>>>> controller? Just like you do for the otg-controller property. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That is a very good point. I'm not very sure and it seems that current code won't work > >>>>>>>> with multiple EHCI + companion instances. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I may misunderstand this topic, but if I use the following environment, it works correctly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> < My environment > > >>>>>> - an otg controller: Sets hcd-needs-companion. > >>>>>> - ehci0 and ohci0 and a function: They connect to the otg controller using "otg-controller" property. > >>>>>> - ehci1 and ohci1: No "otg-controller" property. > >>>>>> - ehci2 and ohci2: No "otg-controller" property. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In this environment, all hosts works correctly. > >>>>>> Also I think if we have 2 otg controlelrs, it should be work because otg_dev instance differs. > >>>>> > >>>>> The topic is about more than one otg controllers and how to tie the right ehci and ohci > >>>>> to the correct otg_dev instance especially in cases where we can't depend on probe order. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Or, does this topic assume an otg controller handles 2 EHCI controllers? > >>>>>> I'm not sure such environment actually exists. > >>>>> > >>>>> No it is not about that. > >>> > >>> Thank you for the reply. I understood it. > >>> > >>>>>>>> Alan, does USB core even know which EHCI and OHCI are linked to the same port > >>>>>>>> or the handoff is software transparent? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The core knows. It doesn't use the information for a whole lot of > >>>>>>> things, but it does use it in a couple of places. Search for > >>>>>>> "companion" in core/hcd-pci.c and you'll see. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you for the information. I didn't know this code. > >>>>>> If my understanding is correct, the core/hcd-pci.c code will not be used by non-PCI devices. > >>>>> > >>>>> That is correct. > >>>>> > >>>>>> In other words, nobody sets "hcd->self.hs_companion" if we use such a device. > >>>>>> So, I will try to add such a code if needed. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think OTG core would have to rely on USB core in providing the right companion device, > >>>>> just like we rely on it for the primary vs shared HCD case. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> OK, it is not so simple. > >>>> > >>>> EHCI and companion port handoff is really meant to be software transparent. > >>>> > >>>> non-PCI devices really don't have knowledge of which OHCI instance is companion to the EHCI. > >>>> With device tree we could provide this mapping but for non-device tree case we can't do > >>>> anything. > >>>> > >>>> So my suggestion would be to keep dual role implementation limited to one instance for > >>>> EHCI + companion case for non-DT. > >>>> For PCI case I don't see how dual role can be implemented. I don't think we have any > >>>> dual-role PCI cards. > >>> > >>> R-Car Gen2 SoCs (r8a779[0134] / arm32) has USB 2.0 host controllers via PCI bus and > >>> one high speed function controller via AXI bus. > >>> One of channel can be used as host or function. > >>> > >>>> For DT case we could have a DT binding to tie the EHCI and companion and use that > >>>> in the OTG framework. > >> > >> After looking at the code it seems we don't need this special binding as we are already > >> linking the EHCI controller and companion controller to the single otg controller instance > >> using the otg-controller property. > >> [...] > > > > Then, how you know this EHCI + companion controller special case during otg adds > > hcd, it needs special handling, right? > > We know the special case by using the hcd_needs_companion flag. > You had said "we don't need this..", ok, yes, we do need it. -- Best Regards, Peter Chen