Hi Martin, Thanks for your valuable feedback, On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 at 17:07, Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. >From the schematics [1] https://dn.odroid.com/S805/Schematics/odroid-c1+_rev0.4_20160226.pdf You could find references to PWREN <--- GPIOAO.BIT5 The second reference is USB HOST Power Switch The third reference is USB HOST POWER. Hope I am clean in my thought process now. . > > > > [...] > > > > + /* > > > > + * 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. Yep, you are correct, If I used GPIOAO_13 wrong pin, it will not enable the USB power. See below. [alarm@archl-c1e ~]$ sudo cat /sys/kernel/debug/gpio | grep usb gpio-1953 (USB_HUB_RST_N |usb-hub-reset ) out hi So correct way with gpios = <&gpio_ao GPIOAO_5 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; [alarm@archl-c1e linux-amlogic-5.y-devel]$ 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 The reason for USB ports has power without this patch is applied. Please check schematics S805 USB2 SDB USB_VDD33 is powered with VDDIO_AO3V3 regulator directly along with SD CARD. > > [...] > > > > &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") OK. > 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. > It just came to my notice your email on this issue sees below. [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-usb/patch/20190306212431.5779-1-martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10868515/ [2] https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=commitdiff;h=d8b475212bbf9e5f80c1c923a9701dca5ceb23e2 >From the openwrt commit d8b475212bbf9e5f80c1c923a9701dca5ceb23e2 and binding yaml [3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.yaml#L87 USB DWC2 power is linked to vbus-supply, so it should be moved to usb node. Now I am getting your point correctly. [ 1.260460] dwc2 c90c0000.usb: Looking up vusb_d-supply property in node /soc/usb@c90c0000 failed [ 1.260490] dwc2 c90c0000.usb: supply vusb_d not found, using dummy regulator [ 1.260606] dwc2 c90c0000.usb: Looking up vusb_a-supply from device tree [ 1.260620] dwc2 c90c0000.usb: Looking up vusb_a-supply property in node /soc/usb@c90c0000 failed [ 1.260641] dwc2 c90c0000.usb: supply vusb_a not found, using dummy regulator [ 1.260717] dwc2 c90c0000.usb: registering common handler for irq35 [ 1.260772] dwc2 c90c0000.usb: Looking up vbus-supply from device tree [ 1.260784] dwc2 c90c0000.usb: Looking up vbus-supply property in node /soc/usb@c90c0000 failed Thanks for the input, I will update the vbus-supply in the next version to USB nodes. > > Best regards, > Martin Thanks -Anand
