[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 2/7] arm: usb: dra7xx: xHCI registers based on USB port index

Marek Vasut
2017-02-19T17:39:03Z

On 02/19/2017 05:26 PM, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> On 02/19/17 17:15, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 04:13:02PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 02/19/2017 03:55 PM, Uri Mashiach wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02/19/2017 04:27 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>> On 02/19/2017 02:27 PM, Uri Mashiach wrote:
>>>>>> Modify the determination of the base address of xHCI registers of DRA7XX
>>>>>> targets.
>>>>>> Before the commit: by the target.
>>>>>> After the commit: by the USB port index.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Uri Mashiach <uri.mashiach@compulab.co.il>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> V1 -> V2: Replace the commit "fix XHCI registers base address".
>>>>>> V2 -> V3: Replace the commit "reintroduce the CONFIG_AM57XX symbol"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> configs/dra7xx_evm_defconfig | 1 +
>>>>>> configs/dra7xx_hs_evm_defconfig | 1 +
>>>>>> drivers/usb/host/Kconfig | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> include/linux/usb/xhci-omap.h | 6 ++++--
>>>>>> 4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/configs/dra7xx_evm_defconfig b/configs/dra7xx_evm_defconfig
>>>>>> index 26b26cc..1f47f92 100644
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/Kconfig b/drivers/usb/host/Kconfig
>>>>>> index 5129a57..440fbcf 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/Kconfig
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/Kconfig
>>>>>> @@ -43,6 +43,22 @@ config USB_XHCI_ZYNQMP
>>>>>> help
>>>>>> Enables support for the on-chip xHCI controller on Xilinx
>>>>>> ZynqMP SoCs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +choice
>>>>>> + prompt "DRA7XX xHCI USB index select"
>>>>>> + depends on DRA7XX
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +config USB_XHCI_DRA7XX_INDEX0
>>>>>> + bool "USB0"
>>>>>> + help
>>>>>> + DRA7XX xHCI USB0.
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +config USB_XHCI_DRA7XX_INDEX1
>>>>>> + bool "USB1"
>>>>>> + help
>>>>>> + DRA7XX xHCI USB1.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is this all about ? Shouldn't this come from DT ? And what if I
>>>>> want to use both XHCI ? This looks totally bogus ...
>
> Right, both XHCIs cannot be used with current driver and we do not have
> the time to fix it by our own... may be TI has?
> Remember, you've accepted the driver and following patches, right?

You mean this patch [1] which actually adds the board dependency ?
Actually , no , I DID NOT. It's been going on for a while that my
role as a USB custodian was actively circumvented and patches which
should've gone through the USB tree just did not.

So please, next time you start blaming someone, get your facts right.

I already have almost zero motivation to maintain USB in my free time,
being paid nothing for it, not ever hearing a single "thank you" and
just spending time I could use otherwise. Being circumvented and only
catching shit for problematic patches I did NOT even apply though, that
is completely off-putting .

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/700372/

> Regarding DT, do we have a DT as a requirement to run USB in U-Boot?

It is highly recommended.

> I don't remember this happening and I think it shouldn't be a requirement.
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The support for both XHCI is currently missing.
>>>> This could be a temporary solution until the DT solution.
>>>> The current situation is worse - selecting USB0 or USB1 based on the
>>>> target.
>>>
>>> So we're replacing it with equally bad solution ?
>
> I don't think equally applies here...
> This IS an improvement. Of course it is not like you would want it to be,
> but still it is from a platform POV.

TBH, revering 042fdb7cabb8270eb86c45f11263fa91c12e3b65 might be the way
to go.

>>> Hmmm , no.
>>> The MW will open mid-march, there's about a month to fix this,
>>> so please do.
>>
>> Do note that the relevant driver here is not yet using DM_USB.
>
> Yes, the driver should be fixed some day. We would really like to take
> this task, but unfortunately, we cannot, at least not right now.
> But we do need that USB working on our board and not only on TI EVMs...

See above, I believe 042fdb7cabb8270eb86c45f11263fa91c12e3b65 is bogus.

> Tom,
> Should we fall back to v1 and have a worse solution for the base addresses?

OK, I see me being USB custodian has exactly zero value now ... good to
know.

--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut