Hi Rob, Thanks as always for your help in reviewing this proposal! Kindly see inline (Trimming text); On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 02:00:47PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:49 AM Prashant Malani <pmalani@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:53 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 04:57:40PM -0700, Prashant Malani wrote: > > > > I think the updated example handles this grouping (port@1 going to a > > "SS mux") although as you said it should probably be a group of muxes, > > but I think the example illustrates the point. Is that assessment > > correct? > > Yes, but let's stop calling it a mux. It's a "USB Type C signal routing blob". Ack. Let's go with "-switch" ? That's what the connector class uses and it conveys the meaning (unless that is a reserved keyword in DT). > > > Would this block the addition of the "*-switch" properties? IIUC the > > two are related but not dependent on each other. > > > > The *-switch properties are phandles which the Type C connector class > > framework expects (and uses to get handles to those switches). > > These would point to the "mux" or "group of mux" abstractions as noted earlier. > > You don't need them though. Walk the graph. You get the connector > port@1 remote endpoint and then get its parent. > I see; would it be something along the lines of this? (DT example follows; search for "example_end" to jump to bottom): <example_start> connector@0 { compatible = "usb-c-connector"; reg = <0>; power-role = "dual"; data-role = "dual"; try-power-role = "source"; .... ports { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; port@0 { reg = <0>; usb_con_hs: endpoint { remote-endpoint = <&foo_usb_hs_controller>; }; }; port@1 { reg = <1>; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; usb_con0_ss_mode: endpoint@0 { reg = <0> remote-endpoint = <&mode_switch_ss_in>; }; usb_con0_ss_orientation: endpoint@1 { reg = <1> remote-endpoint = <&orientation_switch_ss_in>; }; usb_con0_ss_data_role: endpoint@2 { reg = <2> remote-endpoint = <&data_role_switch_in>; }; }; port@2 { reg = <2>; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; usb_con0_sbu_mode: endpoint@0 { reg = <0> remote-endpoint = <&mode_switch_sbu_in>; }; usb_con0_sbu_orientation: endpoint@1 { reg = <1> remote-endpoint = <&orientation_switch_sbu_in>; }; }; }; }; mode_switch { compatible = "typec-mode-switch"; mux-controls = <&mode_mux_controller>; mux-control-names = "mode"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; port@0 { reg = <0>; mode_switch_ss_in: endpoint { remote-endpoint = <&usb_con0_ss_mode> }; }; port@1 { reg = <1>; mode_switch_out_usb3: endpoint { remote-endpoint = <&usb3_0_ep> }; }; port@2 { reg = <2>; mode_switch_out_dp: endpoint { remote-endpoint = <&dp0_out_ep> }; }; port@3 { reg = <3>; mode_switch_sbu_in: endpoint { remote-endpoint = <&usb_con0_sbu_mode> }; }; // ... other ports similarly defined. }; orientation_switch { compatible = "typec-orientation-switch"; mux-controls = <&orientation_mux_controller>; mux-control-names = "orientation"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; port@0 { reg = <0>; orientation_switch_ss_in: endpoint { remote-endpoint = <&usb_con0_ss_orientation> }; }; port@1 reg = <1>; orientation_switch_sbu_in: endpoint { remote-endpoint = <&usb_con0_sbu_orientation> }; }; // ... other ports similarly defined. }; data_role_switch { compatible = "typec-data-role-switch"; mux-controls = <&data_role_switch_controller>; mux-control-names = "data_role"; port { data_role_switch_in: endpoint { remote-endpoint = <&usb_con0_ss_data_role> }; }; }; <example_end> Would this be conformant to OF graph and usb-connector bindings requirements? We'll certainly send out a format PATCH/RFC series for this, but I was hoping to gauge whether we're thinking along the right lines. So, in effect this would mean: - New bindings(and compatible strings) to be added for: typec-{orientation,data-role,mode}-switch. - Handling in Type C connector class to parse switches from OF graph. - Handling in Type C connector class for distinct switches for port@1 (SS lines) and port@2 (SBU lines). The only thing I'm confused about is how we can define these switch remote-endpoint bindings in usb-connector.yaml; the port can have an remote-endpoint, but can we specify what the parent of the remote-endpoint should have as a compatible string? Or do we not need to? Best regards, -Prashant