Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] usb: roles: add API to get usb_role_switch by node

Heikki Krogerus
2019-05-21T10:33:13Z

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:35:04PM +0800, Chunfeng Yun wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, 2019-05-20 at 09:45 +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> >
> > Hi Heikki,
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] usb: roles: add API to get usb_role_switch by
> > > node
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 08:06:41AM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > > > Hi Heikki,
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] usb: roles: add API to get
> > > > > usb_role_switch by node
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:39:11AM +0800, Chunfeng Yun wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > On Fri, 2019-05-17 at 16:05 +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:37:36PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 04:47:21PM +0800, Chunfeng Yun wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Add fwnode_usb_role_switch_get() to make easier to get
> > > > > > > > > usb_role_switch by fwnode which register it.
> > > > > > > > > It's useful when there is not device_connection registered
> > > > > > > > > between two drivers and only knows the fwnode which register
> > > > > > > > > usb_role_switch.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com>
> > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Biju Das <biju.das@bp.renesas.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Acked-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hold on. I just noticed Rob's comment on patch 2/6, where he
> > > > > > > points out that you don't need to use device graph since the
> > > > > > > controller is the parent of the connector. Doesn't that mean you
> > > > > > > don't really need this API?
> > > > > > No, I still need it.
> > > > > > The change is about the way how to get fwnode; when use device
> > > > > > graph, get fwnode by of_graph_get_remote_node(); but now will get
> > > > > > fwnode by of_get_parent();
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I get that, but I'm still not convinced about if something like
> > > > > this function is needed at all. I also have concerns regarding how
> > > > > you are using the function. I'll explain in comment to the patch 5/6 in this
> > > series...
> > > >
> > > > FYI, Currently I am also using this api in my patch series.
> > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10944637/
> > >
> > > Yes, and I have the same question for you I jusb asked in comment I added
> > > to the patch 5/6 of this series. Why isn't usb_role_switch_get() enough?
> >
> > Currently no issue. It will work with this api as well, since the port node is part of controller node.
> > For eg:-
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10944627/
> >
> > However if any one adds port node inside the connector node, then this api may won't work as expected.
> > Currently I get below error
> >
> > [ 2.299703] OF: graph: no port node found in /soc/i2c@e6500000/hd3ss3220@47
> >
> > For eg:-
> >
> > hd3ss3220@47 {
> > compatible = "ti,hd3ss3220";
> > ...
> > ....
> > usb_con: connector {
> > ....
> > ....
> > port {
> > hd3ss3220_ep: endpoint@0 {
> > reg = <0>;
> > remote-endpoint = <&usb3peri_role_switch>;
> > };
> > };
> > };
> > };
> >
> > Regards,
> > Biju
>
> I tested 3 cases:
>
> case 1:
>
> connector {
> compatible = "linux,typeb-conn-gpio", "usb-b-connector";
> label = "micro-USB";
> type = "micro";
> id-gpios = <&pio 12 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> vbus-supply = <&usb_p0_vbus>;
>
> port {
> bconn_ep: endpoint@0 {
> remote-endpoint = <&usb_role_sw>;
> };
> };
> };
>
> &mtu3 {
> usb-role-switch;
>
> port {
> usb_role_sw: endpoint@0 {
> remote-endpoint = <&bconn_ep>;
> };
> };
> };
>
> the driver of connector could use usb_role_switch_get(dev) to get
> mtu3's USB Role Switch. (dev is the device of connector)
>
> case 2:
>
> &mtu3 {
> usb-role-switch;
>
> connector {
> compatible = "linux,typeb-conn-gpio", "usb-b-connector";
> label = "micro-USB";
> type = "micro";
> id-gpios = <&pio 12 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> vbus-supply = <&usb_p0_vbus>;
> };
> };
>
> the driver of connector using usb_role_switch_get(dev) failed to get
> mtu3's USB Role Switch.
> error log:
> #OF: graph: no port node found in /usb@11271000/connector
> this is because connector hasn't child node connected to remote
> endpoint which register USB Role Switch
>
> case 3:
>
> rsw_iddig: role_sw_iddig {
> compatible = "linux,typeb-conn-gpio";
> status = "okay";
>
> connector {
> compatible = "usb-b-connector";
> label = "micro-USB";
> type = "micro";
> id-gpios = <&pio 12 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> vbus-supply = <&usb_p0_vbus>;
>
> port {
> bconn_ep: endpoint@0 {
> remote-endpoint = <&usb_role_sw>;
> };
> };
> };
> };
>
> &mtu3 {
> usb-role-switch;
>
> port {
> usb_role_sw: endpoint@0 {
> remote-endpoint = <&bconn_ep>;
> };
> };
> };
>
>
> the driver of connector using usb_role_switch_get(dev) also failed to
> get mtu3's USB Role Switch. Because usb_role_switch_get() only search
> its child nodes (connector node), but not child's child (port node)
> This case is the same as Biju's
>
> Usually type-c is similar with case 3;
> the next version v6 of this series will use case 2 as Rob suggested,
> see [v5, 2/6]
>
> for case 2, will need the new API fwnode_usb_role_switch_get();

Thanks for the explanation.

In this case, if I understood this correctly, the USB controller, which
is also the role switch, is the parent of the connector. So shouldn't
we simply consider that in the current API?

diff --git a/drivers/usb/roles/class.c b/drivers/usb/roles/class.c
index f45d8df5cfb8..2f898167b99a 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/roles/class.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/roles/class.c
@@ -125,6 +125,13 @@ struct usb_role_switch *usb_role_switch_get(struct device *dev)
{
struct usb_role_switch *sw;

+ /*
+ * Simplest case is that a connector is looking for the controller,
+ * which is its parent.
+ */
+ if (device_property_present(dev->parent, "usb-role-switch"))
+ return to_role_switch(dev->parent);
+
sw = device_connection_find_match(dev, "usb-role-switch", NULL,
usb_role_switch_match);

> for case 3, use the new API, or need modify usb_role_switch_get();

I did not completely understand this case, but isn't it the same as
case 2 in the end, after you change it as Rob suggested?

thanks,

--
heikki