Hi Mathias,
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 01:52:56PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> Hi
>
> Sorry about the delayed response.
>
>
> On 6.4.2022 9.25, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > Hi Heikki/Mathias,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 01:55:16PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> >> Hi Heikki,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 02:16:53PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 08:47:34PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> >>>> On 29.3.2022 12.18, Sandeep Maheswaram (Temp) wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Mathias,Heikki
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 3/25/2022 9:08 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 04:33:27PM +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 25.3.2022 13.27, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:36:22AM +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 24.3.2022 14.27, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 12:07:11PM +0530, Sandeep Maheswaram wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Currently the phy init is done from dwc3 and also xhci which makes the
> >>>>>>>>>>> runtime_usage value 2 for the phy which causes issue during runtime
> >>>>>>>>>>> suspend. When we run the below command the runtime_status still shows
> >>>>>>>>>>> active.
> >>>>>>>>>>> echo auto > /sys/bus/platform/devices/88e3000.phy/power/control
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> dwc3 manages PHY by own DRD driver, so skip the management by
> >>>>>>>>>>> HCD core by setting this quirk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sandeep Maheswaram <quic_c_sanm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>> drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c
> >>>>>>>>>>> index eda8719..d4fcf06 100644
> >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c
> >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c
> >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -13,6 +13,12 @@
> >>>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >>>>>>>>>>> #include "core.h"
> >>>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/usb/xhci-plat.h>
> >>>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/usb/xhci-quirks.h>
> >>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>> +static const struct xhci_plat_priv xhci_plat_dwc3_xhci = {
> >>>>>>>>>>> + .quirks = XHCI_SKIP_PHY_INIT,
> >>>>>>>>>>> +};
> >>>>>>>>>>> static void dwc3_host_fill_xhci_irq_res(struct dwc3 *dwc,
> >>>>>>>>>>> int irq, char *name)
> >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -122,6 +128,13 @@ int dwc3_host_init(struct dwc3 *dwc)
> >>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>> + ret = platform_device_add_data(xhci, &xhci_plat_dwc3_xhci,
> >>>>>>>>>>> + sizeof(xhci_plat_dwc3_xhci));
> >>>>>>>>>>> + if (ret) {
> >>>>>>>>>>> + dev_err(dwc->dev, "failed to add data to xHCI\n");
> >>>>>>>>>>> + goto err;
> >>>>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>> ret = platform_device_add(xhci);
> >>>>>>>>>>> if (ret) {
> >>>>>>>>>>> dev_err(dwc->dev, "failed to register xHCI device\n");
> >>>>>>>>>> I think you should just use device property:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This was suggested in an earlier series, but was rejected as it also added
> >>>>>>>>> the property as a device tree parameter.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think adding more device properties can be messy in the long run, especially if we
> >>>>>>>>> need to add them for many of the existing xhci quirks.
> >>>>>>>>> We also end up with a mix where some device properties are listed as device tree
> >>>>>>>>> parameters, and some not.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Defining xhci quirks and platform data structure in headers shared with dwc3 and cdns3
> >>>>>>>>> allow those drivers to easily set any existing xhci quirk, or other possible optional
> >>>>>>>>> callbacks.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> cdns3 driver is already doing this, but it includes the full xhci.h header.
> >>>>>>>>> This series cleans up that a bit so cdns3 will only include xhci quirk bits and
> >>>>>>>>> platform data structure.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On the downside we add a couple xhci related header files to include/linux/usb/
> >>>>>>>>> Let me know if you see any other issues I missed with this approach.
> >>>>>>>> The problem here is that these drivers are now coupled together, and
> >>>>>>>> that should not be taken lightly. We have a dependency hell in our
> >>>>>>>> hands with a lot of drivers, and the culprit is always platform data.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Build-in device properties may be messy, but I would still say they
> >>>>>>>> are less messy than those quirk flags - you got to admit, they are a
> >>>>>>>> mess. The benefit from build-in properties is in any case the fact
> >>>>>>>> that they remove the need to couple these drivers together.
> >>>>>>> Agree, quirk bits are messy. Any suggestion that would work with
> >>>>>>> PCI xHCI devices, devicetree, and "pure" platform devices?
> >>>>>> I think xHCI driver should always be able to rely on being able to
> >>>>>> read this kind of information from the fwnode. If there is no actual
> >>>>>> firmware node (DT or ACPI), or if it's missing some information, the
> >>>>>> glue driver needs to populate software node for the xHCI.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Right now I just want to avoid having to pass the quirks using
> >>>>>> platform data from drivers such as drivers/usb/cdns3/host.c and
> >>>>>> drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c to xHCI.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One way we could do that is by defining compatibility ID for both of
> >>>>>> them that we provide using a single device property (like I guess DT
> >>>>>> does). Then based on that compatibility ID, xhci-plat.c can set the
> >>>>>> actual "static" quirk flags. That we could already do easily. How
> >>>>>> would that sound to you?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sounds good.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This was my previous patch where I was using device tree property. Should we go ahead with this approach?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/cover/1636353710-25582-1-git-send-email-quic_c_sanm@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any further changes to this ?
> >>>>
> >>>> By dropping the DT part of that series we get a similar built-in device property
> >>>> solution as Heikki initially suggested.
> >>>>
> >>>> How about adding the compatibility ID device property that was just suggested?
> >>>> Then matching the Id in xhci-plat.c against a static table containing Ids and
> >>>> xhci_plat_priv structures, with the needed quirks for dwc3.
> >>>
> >>> There was a comment from Pavan. Is it still possible to get this
> >>> detail from DT?
> >>> I guess that would still be ideal, right?
> >>>
> >> I was suggesting if we can have device tree param like the patch sandeep
> >> pointed out.
> >>
> >> How would adding a compatible index to usb_xhci_of_match[] would work
> >> actually? I ask this because, dwc3/host.c creates platform device and
> >> it is not associated with any of_node, so of_driver_match_device() called
> >> from platform bus match method does not work. one way to achieve this would
> >> be by matching against sysdev. Something like below. Is it acceptible?
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> >> index 649ffd8..bd5d055 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> >> @@ -126,6 +126,10 @@ static const struct xhci_plat_priv xhci_plat_brcm = {
> >> .quirks = XHCI_RESET_ON_RESUME,
> >> };
> >>
> >> +static const struct xhci_plat_priv xhci_plat_dwc3 = {
> >> + .quirks = XHCI_SKIP_PHY_INIT,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> static const struct of_device_id usb_xhci_of_match[] = {
> >> {
> >> .compatible = "generic-xhci",
> >> @@ -167,6 +171,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id usb_xhci_of_match[] = {
> >> }, {
> >> .compatible = "brcm,bcm7445-xhci",
> >> .data = &xhci_plat_brcm,
> >> + }, {
> >> + .compatible = "snps,dwc3",
> >> + .data = &xhci_plat_dwc3,
> >> },
>
> Isn't there a risk that xhci-plat now binds to the parent dwc3 device?
> competing with the similar of_match_table entry created in drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
Sill of me. Yes, it does not work. Thanks for pointing it out.
>
> >> {},
> >> };
> >> @@ -274,6 +281,15 @@ static int xhci_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> else
> >> priv_match = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
> >>
> >> + /* allow private data mapping with the sysdev compatible */
> >> + if (!priv_match) {
> >> + struct of_device_id *match;
> >> +
> >> + match = of_match_device(usb_xhci_of_match, sysdev);
> >> + if (match)
> >> + priv_match = match->data;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> if (priv_match) {
> >> priv = hcd_to_xhci_priv(hcd);
> >> /* Just copy data for now */
> >>
> >>> I have another question. Can't we now just assume that if the sysdev
> >>> is the parent (or grandparent), then the phy initialization should
> >>> always be skipped? In that case we could just do something like this:
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> >>> index 649ffd861b44e..1018b33488046 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> >>> @@ -212,8 +212,12 @@ static int xhci_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>> #endif
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> - if (!sysdev)
> >>> + if (sysdev) {
> >>> + if (sysdev != &pdev->dev)
> >>> + hcd->skip_phy_initialization = 1;
> >>> + } else {
> >>> sysdev = &pdev->dev;
> >>> + }
> >>>
> >>> if (WARN_ON(!sysdev->dma_mask))
> >>> /* Platform did not initialize dma_mask */
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I did not go through all the drivers that carefully, so I may have
> >>> missed something, but it looks like the only drivers that can have the
> >>> sysdev as the parent or grandparent are cdns3 and dwc3.
> >>>
> >> I cross checked and these are two drivers that are creating xhci-plat device.
> >> So this patch would definitely work. However I am not sure in future if any
> >> device created via device tree would want to use this feature. For now,
> >> it looks good. It Mathias, Do you see any problem with this approach?
> >>
>
> Would work for now but seems like a risk to assume this would hold for all future
> xhci platform devices.
>
Agree that it may break in future for other drivers.
> >
> > Can you please provide your suggestions on this? We have discussed about
> > 3 approaches here other than the whole platform data refactoring done.
> >
> > (1) Introduce a new dT property and expect dwc3/host.c to set this property
> > to skip the phy initialization.
>
> Adding one more device property to swnode in dwc3/host.c starts
> to look like the best option for now even if it didn't appeal initially.
>
> The place creating the xhci platform device should have best info on what properties
> are needed for the platform device.
>
> So this would be just like Heikki's first suggestion, or Sandeep's patches 2/3 and 3/3 in:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/cover/1636353710-25582-1-git-send-email-quic_c_sanm@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> but without the devicetree binding documentation part.
>
Why do you say devicetree binding doc is not needed in this case? Possible
that xhci-plat's device can be coming from dT and this param is passed to
skip initialization of PHY.
Thanks,
Pavan
