Am Samstag, 9. April 2022, 13:30:44 CEST schrieb Peter Geis: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:14 AM Peter Geis <pgwipeout@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:01 AM Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Am Samstag, 9. April 2022, 12:57:39 CEST schrieb Frank Wunderlich: > > > > Hi > > > > > Gesendet: Samstag, 09. April 2022 um 12:40 Uhr > > > > > Von: "Dan Johansen" <strit@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > So the issue is only with usb 3 ports, not usb 2 ports? > > > > > > > > my board has no standalone usb2-ports. usb2 is integrated into the usb3 ports (dual phy). here both were not working. > > > > > > > > afaik rk3566 has standalone usb2 ports that may not be broken, but i have no such board for testing. > > > > Good Morning, > > > > > > > > As far as I understand the issue now after checking the code, this > > > patch actually fixes the usb3 series from Peter, right? > > > > > > I.e. the usb-nodes that are fixed in this patch are not yet present > > > in the main rk356x dtsi and only get added in > > > "arm64: dts: rockchip: add rk356x dwc3 usb3 nodes" [0] > > > > > > As we don't want to add broken changes, this fix should squashed > > > into a next version of the patch adding the nodes. > > > > Thank you for reporting this, I will squash this fix in and add your signed-off. > > > > However the offending patch is in fact the clock separation patch, and > > it breaks backwards compatibility with the rk3328 dtsi which is why my > > series also is broken. > > > > The rockchip,dwc3.yaml needs to be fixed to align with the > > snps,dwc3.yaml, and both the rk3328 and rk3399 clock names updated. > > Also the offending clock separation patch needs a fix to grab the old > > clock names for rk3328 backwards compatibility to be retained. > > > > This might also be a good time to look into moving rk3399 to the core > > dwc3 driver? > > > > This is a delightful mess. > > In the idea of getting this series to land, if all parties agree, I'll > submit a patch that fixes the clock separation patch with this series > and leave the naming as is for now. > The renaming of clocks and alignment of everything can be addressed in > a future series once discussion on how best to handle it has happened. > > Do you concur with this? I'm not sure about that ... i.e. adding known-broken changes (for the rk356x) feels somewhat wrong to me. Heiko
