From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751734AbcFEG4H (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jun 2016 02:56:07 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:25321 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751050AbcFEG4F (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jun 2016 02:56:05 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,420,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="995453020" Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/7] usb: mux: add generic code for dual role port mux To: Peter Chen References: <1464831449-8973-1-git-send-email-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <1464831449-8973-3-git-send-email-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <20160603074113.GA30006@shlinux2> <5751AAEE.2090001@linux.intel.com> <20160604022838.GA26936@shlinux2> Cc: felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com, Mathias Nyman , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Lee Jones , Heikki Krogerus , Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roger Quadros From: Lu Baolu Message-ID: <5753CCFC.2060504@linux.intel.com> Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 14:55:56 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160604022838.GA26936@shlinux2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Peter, On 06/04/2016 10:28 AM, Peter Chen wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 12:06:06AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: >>> from my point,it is a dual-role switch >>> driver too, >> No, it's not a dual-role switch driver, but a driver for USB port multiplexing. >> >> One example of port multiplexing can be found in several Intel SOC and PCH >> chips, inside of which, there are two independent USB controllers: host and >> device. They might share a single port and this port could be configured to >> route the line to one of these two controllers. This patch introduced a generic >> framework for port mux drivers. It aids the drivers to handle port mux by >> providing interfaces to 1) register/unregister a mux device; 2) lookup the >> mux device; and 3) switch the port. >> > For this case, I can't see it is different with dual-role switch. Port mux is part of dual role switch, but not the whole thing. Dual role switch includes at least below things: - ID or type-C event detection - port mux - VBUS management - start/stop host/device controllers An OTG/Dual-role framework can be used to keep all these things run together with an internal state machine. But it's not duplicated with a generic framework for port mux and the port mux drivers. > Your > case is just like Renesas case, which uses two different drivers between > peripheral and host[1]. In my case, the port mux devices are physical devices and they can be controlled through GPIO pins or device registers. They are independent of both peripheral and host controllers. >> Port multiplexing isn't equal to USB dual role. There are other cases in today's >> systems. In several Intel PCH chips, there equips two USB host controllers: ehci >> and xhci. The xhci USB2 ports are multiplexed with ehci. This guarantees all >> USB ports work even running an old version of OS which lacks of USB3 support. >> In theory, we can create a driver for the port mux and switch the ports between >> xhci and ehci, but that's silly, isn't it? Why not always USB3?:-) >> >> Another case is xHCI debug capability. The xHCI host controller might equip >> a unit for system debugging (refer to 7.6 of xHCI spec). The debugging unit is >> independent of xhci host controller. But it shares its port with xhci. Software >> could switch the port between xhci and the debugging unit through the registers >> defined in xHCI spec. >> > Yes, above two are different with dual role switch. But in your code and > Kconfig, it seems this framework is dedicated for dual-role. Eg: > > +menuconfig USB_PORTMUX > + bool "USB dual role port MUX support" > + help > + Generic USB dual role port mux support. Above two cases are examples for port multiplexing, but I don't think we need drivers for them. At this moment, this framework is only for dual role port mux devices. > > I think a general dual role port mux is necessary, it can be used to > manage different dual-role switch method, eg Yes, I agree. > - ID pin > - External connector through GPIO > - SoC register > - sysfs > - type-C events ID pin and type-C events are the *reasons* which trigger the port mux switch. Currently, on our platforms, gpio, registers and sysfs are methods to control the mux. > > But this code is better co-work with OTG/Dual-role framework, we'd > better have only interface that the user can know which role for the > current port. OTG/Dual-role framework and portmux framework are not overlapped. The sysfs interface shouldn't be overlapped as well. Say, I have a port mux device and I have a driver for it. I am able to read the status of my port mux device through sysfs. This is not part of OTG/Dual-role as far as I can see. Best regards, Lu Baolu