Hi,
On Friday 17 June 2016 10:16 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Hi Kishon,
>
> Am Freitag, 17. Juni 2016, 17:24:46 schrieb Kishon Vijay Abraham I:
>
>>> + ret = of_clk_add_provider(node, of_clk_src_simple_get, rphy->clk480m);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + goto err_clk_provider;
>>> +
>>> + ret = devm_add_action(rphy->dev, rockchip_usb2phy_clk480m_unregister,
>>> + rphy);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + goto err_unreg_action;
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> +err_unreg_action:
>>> + of_clk_del_provider(node);
>>> +err_clk_provider:
>>> + clk_unregister(rphy->clk480m);
>>> +err_register:
>>> + if (rphy->clk)
>>> + clk_put(rphy->clk);
>>> + return ret;
>>> +}
>>
>> I'm seeing lot of similarities specifically w.r.t to clock handling part in
>> drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-usb.c. Why not just re-use that driver?
>
> It's a completely different phy block (Designware vs. Innosilicon) and a lot
> of stuff also is handled differently.
>
> For one on the old block, each phy was somewhat independent and had for examle
> its own clock-supply, while on this one there is only one for both ports of
> the phy. Similarly with the clock getting fed back to the clock-controller
> (one clock per port on the old block, now one clock for the whole phy).
>
> Then as you can see, the handling for power-up and down is a bit different and
> I guess one big block might be the still missing special otg handling, Frank
> wrote about.
All right then.
>
>
> [...]
>
>>> + /*
>>> + * we don't need to rearm the delayed work when the phy port
>>> + * is suspended.
>>> + */
>>> + mutex_unlock(&rport->mutex);
>>> + return;
>>> + default:
>>> + dev_dbg(&rport->phy->dev, "unknown phy state\n");
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> +next_schedule:
>>> + mutex_unlock(&rport->mutex);
>>> + schedule_delayed_work(&rport->sm_work, SCHEDULE_DELAY);
>>
>> Why are you scheduling the work again? Interrupt handlers can invoke this
>> right?
>
> Frank said, that the phy is only able to detect the plug-in event via
> interrupts, not the removal, so once a plugged device is detected, this gets
> rescheduled until the device gets removed.
okay.
>
> [...]
>
>>> + /* find out a proper config which can be matched with dt. */
>>> + index = 0;
>>> + while (phy_cfgs[index].reg) {
>>> + if (phy_cfgs[index].reg == reg) {
>>
>> Why not pass these config values from dt? Moreover finding the config using
>> register offset is bound to break.
>
> As you have probably seen, this phy block is no stand-alone (mmio-)device, but
> gets controlled through special register/bits in the so called "General
> Register Files" syscon.
>
> The values stored and accessed here, are the location and layout of those
> control registers. Bits in those phy control registers at times move between
> phy-versions in different socs (rk3036, rk3228, rk3366, rk3368, rk3399) and
> some are even missing. So I don't really see a nice way to describe that in dt
> without describing the register and offset of each of those 22 used bits
> individually.
>
>
> I'm also not sure where you expect it to break? The reg-offset is the offset
> of the phy inside the GRF and the Designware-phy also already does something
> similar to select some appropriate values.
I'm concerned the phy can be placed in the different reg-offset within GRF
(like in the next silicon revision) and this driver can't be used.
Thanks
Kishon
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
