HI, reviews:
ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@xxxxxxxxx> 於 2021年1月19日 週二 下午4:23寫道：
>
> Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2021年1月19日 週二 下午3:38寫道：
> >
> > On Mon, 2021-01-18 at 16:28 +0800, ChiYuan Huang wrote:
> > > Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2021年1月18日 週一 上午1:43寫道：
> > > >
> > > > On 1/15/21 6:13 AM, cy_huang wrote:
> > > > > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > MT6360 not support for TCPC command to control source and sink.
> > > >
> > > > does not
> > > >
> > > Ack
> > > > > Uses external 5V vbus regulator as the vbus source control.
> > > > >
> > > > Use
> > > >
> > > Ack
> > > > > Also adds the capability to report vsafe0v.
> > > > >
> > > > add
> > > >
> > > Ack
> > > > So far this driver works without regulator. Unless I am missing something,
> > > > this patch makes regulator support mandatory, meaning existing code will fail.
> > > > I am not sure if that is appropriate/acceptable. Can we be sure that this will
> > > > work for existing users of this driver ?
> > > >
> > > Yes, I already checked all the src/snk functionality based on the
> > > latest typec code.
> > > It'll be common for our TCPC. It didn't support for TCPC command.
> > > From the recent patches, actually, I have the local change to test the
> > > src capability.
> > > But I didn't submit it. It's almost the same to add set_vbus callback.
> > > That's why I submit this change after tcpci 'set_vbus callback' is added.
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Guenter
> > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c
> > > > > index f1bd9e0..0edf4b6 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c
> > > > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> > > > > #include <linux/of.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/regmap.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/usb/tcpm.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > #include "tcpci.h"
> > > > > @@ -36,6 +37,7 @@ struct mt6360_tcpc_info {
> > > > > struct tcpci_data tdata;
> > > > > struct tcpci *tcpci;
> > > > > struct device *dev;
> > > > > + struct regulator *vbus;
> > > > > int irq;
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -51,6 +53,27 @@ static inline int mt6360_tcpc_write16(struct regmap *regmap,
> > > > > return regmap_raw_write(regmap, reg, &val, sizeof(u16));
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static int mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *data, bool src, bool snk)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct mt6360_tcpc_info *mti = container_of(data, struct mt6360_tcpc_info, tdata);
> > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* To correctly handle the already enabled vbus and disable its supply first */
> > > > > + if (regulator_is_enabled(mti->vbus)) {
> > > > > + ret = regulator_disable(mti->vbus);
> > > > > + if (ret)
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > Is it really a good idea to disable vbus if it happens to be already enabled
> > > > and there is (another ?) request to enable it ?
> > > >
> > > Yes, for the state change from src_attach_wait to src_attach,
> > > It need to meet the requirement that the vbus is at vsafe0v.
> > > So to disable it first is needed.
> > > And to prevent other users from enabling/disabling external vbus
> > > regulator in any case.
> > > I think we may change regulator_get to 'regulator_get_exclusive'.
> > > From the design, 5v regulator only can be controlled via typec framework.
> > > If other user touch it, it'll affect the typec state transition.
> > How about to process the case that even switch usb controller to device
> > mode, platform also need to keep vbus on? e.g. Iphone Carplay
> >
> >
> It must be processed by USBPD data role swap.
>
> Type C only decide the initial role (SNK: power snk and ufp; SRC:
> power src and DFP).
> Only USBPD can change the power/data/vconn role individually.
>
I'm not sure the status about this patch.
But I'm trying to figure out the problems about some TCPCs.
Not all TCPCs can support the source_vbus/sink_vbus command.
I'm trying to add this patch make our mt6360 tcpc work.
Originally, I add some proprietary code in usb to make the otg vbus
output due to no set_vbus callback handled by vendor ops.
Eventually, I found the patch
b9358a068490 usb: typec: tcpci: Add set_vbus tcpci callback
Hope to get any response from you.
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (src) {
> > > > > + ret = regulator_enable(mti->vbus);
> > > > > + if (ret)
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > static int mt6360_tcpc_init(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *tdata)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct regmap *regmap = tdata->regmap;
> > > > > @@ -138,7 +161,13 @@ static int mt6360_tcpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > if (mti->irq < 0)
> > > > > return mti->irq;
> > > > >
> > > > > + mti->vbus = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vbus");
> > > > > + if (IS_ERR(mti->vbus))
> > > > > + return PTR_ERR(mti->vbus);
> > > > > +
> > > > > mti->tdata.init = mt6360_tcpc_init;
> > > > > + mti->tdata.set_vbus = mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus;
> > > > > + mti->tdata.vbus_vsafe0v = 1;
> > > > > mti->tcpci = tcpci_register_port(&pdev->dev, &mti->tdata);
> > > > > if (IS_ERR(mti->tcpci)) {
> > > > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register tcpci port\n");
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
