On 15/01/2024 20:43, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> On 15.01.24 19:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 15/01/2024 17:24, Javier Carrasco wrote:
>>> Do you mean that the XVF3500 should not be represented as a platform
>>> device and instead it should turn into an USB device represented as a
>>> node of an USB controller? Something like this (Rockchip SoC):
>>>
>>> &usb_host1_xhci {
>>> ...
>>>
>>> xvf3500 {
>>> ...
>>> };
>>> };
>>>
>>> Did I get you right or is that not the correct representation? Thank you
>>> again.
>>
>> I believe it should be just like onboard hub. I don't understand why
>> onboard hub was limited to hub, because other USB devices also could be
>> designed similarly by hardware folks :/
>>
>> And if we talk about Linux drivers, then your current solution does not
>> support suspend/resume and device unbind.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>
> Actually this series is an attempt to get rid of a misuse of the
> onboard_usb_hub driver by a device that is not a HUB, but requires the
> platform-part of that driver for the initialization.
That's just naming issue, isn't it?
>
> What would be the best approach to provide support upstream? Should I
> turn this driver into a generic USB driver that does what the
> platform-part of the onboard HUB does? Or are we willing to accept
No, because you did not solve the problems I mentioned. This is neither
accurate hardware description nor proper Linux driver model handling PM
and unbind.
> non-HUB devices in the onboard_usb_hub driver even though it supports
> more operations?
>
> I am adding linux-usb to this thread in case someone has other suggestions.
I don't see any difference between this device and onboard hub. The
concept and the problem is the same. Therefore either treat it as as
onboard hub or come with USB-version of PCI power sequencing.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240104130123.37115-1-brgl@xxxxxxxx/
Best regards,
Krzysztof
