On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:27 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/15/19 7:39 AM, John Stultz wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:51 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 03-10-2019 22:37, John Stultz wrote: > >>> Fair point. I'm sort of taking a larger patchset and trying to break > >>> it up into more easily reviewable chunks, but I guess here I mis-cut. > >>> > >>> The user is the hikey960 gpio hub driver here: > >>> https://git.linaro.org/people/john.stultz/android-dev.git/commit/?id=b06158a2d3eb00c914f12c76c93695e92d9af00f > >> > >> Hmm, that seems to tie the TypeC data-role to the power-role, which > >> is not going to work with role swapping. > > > > Thanks again for the feedback here. Sorry for the slow response. Been > > reworking some of the easier changes but am starting to look at how to > > address your feedback here. > > > >> What is controlling the usb-role-switch, and thus ultimately > >> causing the notifier you are suggesting to get called ? > > > > The tcpm_mux_set() call via tcpm_state_machine_work() > > > >> Things like TYPEC_VBUS_POWER_OFF and TYPEC_VBUS_POWER_ON > >> really beg to be modeled as a regulator and then the > >> Type-C controller (using e.g. the drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c > >> framework) can use that regulator to control things. > >> in case of the tcpm.c framework it can then use that > >> regulator to implement the set_vbus callback. > > > > So I'm looking at the bindings and I'm not sure exactly how to tie a > > regulator style driver into the tcpm for this? > > Looking at the driver I just see this commented out bit: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c#n3075 > > > > Do you happen to have a pointer to something closer to what you are describing? > > Look at the tcpm_set_vbus implementation in drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/fusb302.c > you need to do something similar in your Type-C controller driver and > export the GPIO as as a gpio-controlled regulator and tie the regulator to > the connector. Thanks for the suggestion, I really appreciate it! One more question though, since I'm using the tcpci_rt1711h driver, which re-uses the somewhat sparse tcpci.c implementation, would you recommend trying to add generic regulator support to the tcpci code or trying to extend the implementation somehow allow the tcpci_rt1711h driver replace just the set_vbus function? thanks -john
