Hi Anand, On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 5:38 AM Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > > enable input power to USB ports, set it to Active Low. > > > > > > [ 1.253149] phy phy-c1108820.phy.0: Looking up phy-supply from device tree > > > [ 1.253166] phy phy-c1108820.phy.0: Looking up phy-supply property > > > in node /soc/cbus@c1100000/phy@8820 failed > > high prio: > > Can you please describe how I can test this patch? > > My concern is that previously I have tested your patch with ACTIVE_LOW > > and ACTIVE_HIGH polarity. > > In both cases USB is working and I cannot observe any change (apart > > from this debug message being gone). > > > > In the Odroid-C1 schematics (page 1) GPIOAO.BIT5 is connected to USB_OTG *only*. > > I cannot give my Acked-/Reviewed-/Tested-by without a description of > > how I can actually test the GPIO potion of this patch. This question is still open. Even with all your explanations below I am missing a way to verify if GPIOAO_5 is the correct GPIO to use. > > [...] > > > + /* > > > + * signal name from schematics: PWREN - GPIOAO.BIT5 > > > + */ > > > + gpios = <&gpio_ao GPIOAO_5 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > > low prio: > > Even though it's strictly not necessary I think this is confusing to read. > > Since there's no "enable-active-high" property the GPIO will be > > considered as "active low". > > My suggestion is to change GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH to GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW > > > My apologies, I might have sent the wrong set of patches its > GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW I meant > I have formatted with and in the course of testing and verifying It > might have got SKIPPED. > I didn't do this intentionally it happen with a mistake with my two > repositories. > I don't intend to repeat my mistake, again and again, *sorry for the trouble*. no worries, that's why I mentioned that it's low priority > > Also if you have any extra information since you last pinged me on IRC > > then it would be great if you could document it. > > I am referring to these IRC message, where you are stating that the > > correct polarity should be "active high": > > <armoon> xdarklight I have a question on USB GPIO Polarity on Odroid C1+ > > <armoon> As per the > > https://dn.odroid.com/S805/Schematics/odroid-c1+_rev0.4_20160226.pdf > > <armoon> MP62551DGT-LF IC controls the power for the USB PORTS > > <armoon> https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/277/MP62550-1384050.pdf is > > MP62551DGT datasheet > > <armoon> As per the data sheet in section ORDERING INFORMATION Active > > enable signal is set below MP62551DGT Active High > > > > [1] https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/277/MP62550-1384050.pdf > > I have read the datasheets MP62551DGT EN* pin its Enable input. Active Low: > *EN I Enable input. Active Low: (MP62550), Active High: (MP62551).* > > I have tested with ACTIVE_LOW and followed all the steps invalidating > this with debugfs output. > > Last login: Tue Jul 13 00:02:49 2021 from 10.0.0.14 > [alarm@archl-c1e ~]$ sudo cat /sys/kernel/debug/gpio | grep usb > gpio-1953 (USB_HUB_RST_N |usb-hub-reset ) out hi > gpio-1954 (USB_OTG_PWREN |regulator-usb-pwr-en) out lo ACTIVE LOW This means that whatever is configured in the .dts is also showing up in debugfs. It doesn't mean that the correct GPIO or polarity is used -> that is why I want to understand how to actually test this patch. Technically I can write a patch that makes GPIOAO_13 (which is connected to the status LED) show up as being used by regulator-usb-pwr-en in debugfs. [...] > > > &usb1_phy { > > > status = "okay"; > > > + phy-supply = <&usb_pwr_en>; > > medium priority: > > I have raised the following concern in one of my previous emails on this topic: > > > The mistake I made before is considering USB VBUS as PHY power supply. > > > I believe the USB PHY is actually powered by the AVDD18_USB_ADC and > > > USB33_VDDIOH signals. See the S905 datasheet [0], page 25 > > > These are 1.8V and 3.3V signals while you are adding a 5V regulator. > > you replied with: > > > OK, thanks. > > so I don't understand what "OK, thanks" means. > > If it means "Martin, you are wrong" then please provide a description > > so I can also learn something! > > Yes, I understood your inputs. But from the logs below is seen to > looking for phy-supply This sentence is correct > This is the reason I went ahead with phy-supply as the core phy node > needs this property. This sentence is not correct >From drivers/phy/phy-core.c: phy->pwr = regulator_get_optional(&phy->dev, "phy"); As you can see, the "phy-supply" regulator is marked as optional in the PHY subsystem. This matches with Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-bindings.txt where "phy-supply" is marked as an optional property. > Please check below commit > e841ec956e53 ("ARM64: dts: meson-gxbb-odroidc2: fix usb1 power supply") That commit is from 2017. You'll also find some commits where I am also using the phy-supply property (I didn't know better back then). However, in 2018 things changed when the dwc2 driver gained a vbus-supply property in commit 531ef5ebea9639 ("usb: dwc2: add support for host mode external vbus supply") So for new .dts support phy-supply should not be used anymore for VBUS because phy-supply (described as "Phandle to a regulator that provides power to the PHY." in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-bindings.txt) and vbus-supply are two different things. Best regards, Martin
