On 22/11/2022 11:47, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:30 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 22/11/2022 10:07, Herve Codina wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:42:48 +0100 >>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On 22/11/2022 09:25, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>>>> Hi Krzysztof, >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 8:45 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski >>>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> On 21/11/2022 21:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>>>>>>> This does not change anything. Herve wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> probe some devices (USB host and probably others) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why some can be probed earlier and some not, if there are no >>>>>>>> dependencies? If there are dependencies, it's the same case with sysctrl >>>>>>>> touching the register bit and the USB controller touching it (as well >>>>>>>> via syscon, but that's obvious, I assume). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where is the synchronization problem? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The h2mode bit (and probably a few other controls we haven't figured out >>>>>>> yet) in the sysctrl must be set before any of the USB devices is active. >>>>>>> Hence it's safest for the sysctrl to do this before any of the USB drivers >>>>>>> probes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, this does not differ from many, many of other devices. All of >>>>>> them must set something in system controller block, before they start >>>>>> operating (or at specific time). It's exactly the same everywhere. >>>>> >>>>> The issue here is that there are two _different drivers_ (USB host >>>>> and device). When both are modular, and the driver that depends on the >>>>> sysctrl setting is loaded second, you have a problem: the sysctrl change >>>>> must not be done when the first driver is already using the hardware. >>>>> >>>>> Hence the sysctrl driver should take care of it itself during early >>>>> initialization (it's the main clock controller, so it's a dependency >>>>> for all other I/O device drivers). >>>> >>>> I assumed you have there bit for the first device (which can switch >>>> between USB host and USB device) to choose appropriate mode. The >>>> bindings also expressed this - "the USBs are". Never said anything about >>>> dependency between these USBs. >>>> >>>> Are you saying that the mode for first device cannot be changed once the >>>> second device (which is only host) is started? IOW, the mode setup must >>>> happen before any of these devices are started? >>>> >>>> Anyway with sysctrl approach you will have dependency and you cannot >>>> rely on clock provider-consumer relationship to order that dependency. >>>> What if you make all clocks on and do not take any clocks in USB device? >>>> Broken dependency. What if you want to use this in a different SoC, >>>> where the sysctrl does not provide clocks? Broken dependency. >>> >>> The issue is really related to the Renesas sysctrl itself and not related >>> to the USB drivers themselves. >>> From the drivers themselves, the issue is not seen (I mean the driver >>> takes no specific action related to this issue). >>> If we change the SOC, the issue will probably not exist anymore. >> >> Yeah, and in the next SoC you will bring 10 of such properties to >> sysctrl arguing that if one was approved, 10 is also fine. Somehow >> people on the lists like to use that argument - I saw it somewhere, so I >> am allowed to do here the same. > > Like pin control properties? ;-) > This property represents a wiring on the board... > I.e. a system integration issue. > >> I understand that the registers responsible for configuration are in >> sysctrl block, but it does not mean that it should be described as part >> of sysctrl Devicetree node. If there was no synchronization problem, >> this would be regular example of register in syscon which is handled >> (toggled) by the device (so USB device/host controller). Since there is >> synchronization problem, you argue that it is correct representation of >> hardware. No, it is not, because logically in DT you do not describe >> mode or existence of other devices in some other node and it still does >> not describe this ordering. > > So we have to drop the property, and let the sysctrl block look > for <name>@<reg> nodes, and check which ones are enabled? > > Running out of ideas... One solution could be making USB nodes children of the sysctrl block which: 1. Gives proper ordering (children cannot start before parent) regardless of any other shared resources, 2. Allows to drop this mode property and instead check what type of children you have and configure mode depending on them. However this also might not be correct representation of hardware (dunno...), so I am also running out of ideas. Anyway, I appreciate your explanations. I don't oppose this and I defer the decision to Rob (for this or for v3 patch with descriptive strings). Best regards, Krzysztof
