Hey Heikki, On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:06 AM Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for testing these.. > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 07:45:26PM -0800, Prashant Malani wrote: > > Hi Heikki, > > > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 6:37 AM Heikki Krogerus > > <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This removes the need for the drivers to always separately evaluate > > > the _PLD. With the USB Type-C connector and USB port mapping this > > > allows us to start using the component framework and remove the custom > > > APIs. > > > > > > So far the only users of the _PLD information have been the USB > > > drivers, but it seems it will be used also at least in some camera > > > drivers later. These nevertheless touch mostly USB drivers. > > > > > > Rafael, is it still OK if Greg takes these? > > > > > > Prashant, can you test these? > > > > I've applied the patches to a system with the requisite _PLD entries > > in firmware, and I'm not sure I can see the connectors getting created > > correctly. > > > > My setup is: > > > > Chromebook ------> Dell WD19TB dock (in USB+DisplayPort Alternate > > Mode) ----> USB Thumb drive. > > > > Here is the lsusb -t output before connecting the dock (omitting > > unrelated busses): > > localhost ~ # lsusb -t > > /: Bus 02.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=xhci_hcd/3p, 10000M/x2 > > > > Here is the lsusb -t output (omitting unrelated busses): > > localhost ~ # lsusb -t > > /: Bus 02.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=xhci_hcd/3p, 10000M/x2 > > |__ Port 2: Dev 15, If 0, Class=Hub, Driver=hub/4p, 10000M > > |__ Port 3: Dev 16, If 0, Class=Hub, Driver=hub/4p, 5000M > > |__ Port 3: Dev 18, If 0, Class=Mass Storage, > > Driver=usb-storage, 5000M > > |__ Port 4: Dev 17, If 0, Class=Vendor Specific Class, > > Driver=r8152, 5000M > > > > I see the connector symlink for the root hub: > > > > localhost ~ # cd /sys/bus/usb/devices > > localhost /sys/bus/usb/devices # ls 2-2/port/connector > > data_role device firmware_node port1-cable port1-partner power > > power_operation_mode power_role preferred_role subsystem > > supported_accessory_modes uevent usb2-port2 usb3-port2 > > usb_power_delivery_revision usb_typec_revision vconn_source > > > > But for none of the children devices: > > > > localhost /sys/bus/usb/devices # ls 2-2.3/port/connector > > ls: cannot access '2-2.3/port/connector': No such file or directory > > localhost /sys/bus/usb/devices # ls 2-2.3.3/port/connector > > ls: cannot access '2-2.3.3/port/connector': No such file or directory > > localhost /sys/bus/usb/devices # ls 2-2.3\:1.0/port/connector > > ls: cannot access '2-2.3:1.0/port/connector': No such file or directory > > localhost /sys/bus/usb/devices # ls 2-2.3.3\:1.0/port/connector > > ls: cannot access '2-2.3.3:1.0/port/connector': No such file or directory > > > > Is this as you intended with the series? My interpretation was that > > each connected usb device would get a "connector" symlink, but I may > > have misinterpreted this. > > It is as intended. The usb ports on the board will have the connector > symlink, not the devices attached to them - the firmware is only aware > of the connectors on the board of course. It looks like this series is > working as it should. Thanks for clarifying my understanding here. > > If you want to extend this solution so that also every device in the > usb topology will have the link to the connector on board, then that > should be now possible, but that is out side of the scope of this > series. You need to propose that separately. > > But I must ask, why can't you just walk down the topology until you > reach the on-board ports that will have the connector links? > Right, we can certainly do that; having it in each device is just convenient. But as you said, that's the subject of another series. You mentioned there would be a v2, so I'll add my Tested-By then. Best regards,
