On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 at 19:49, Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 20/06/2024 17:07, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 03:30:29PM GMT, Caleb Connolly wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 20/06/2024 15:15, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 23:33, Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Give a hint to the OS which role we prefer. Host mode generally makes > >>>> the most sense. > >>> > >>> Why? > >> > >> I guess this is subjective, but on these boards the more common usecase is > >> host mode (before we had role switching we forced them to host mode...). > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> --- > >>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qrb4210-rb2.dts | 4 ++++ > >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> Would it make sense to set this for all the RB and HDK boards? > >> > >> The rb1/2 are the only boards which lack multiple USB controllers. For > >> others it's fine to leave the default (peripheral mode). > > > > SM8450-HDK and SM8650-HDK also have just a single USB-C port. My logic > > was slightly different. We consider these devices to be SBCs, so I'd > > expect that they act as hosts _by_default_. If somebody plugs RB board > > into a laptop, then it's logical that it should work as a device, but > > between the phone and the RB board the RB is a host. > > Ahh I see, then yes perhaps it makes sense. I can send v2 with patches > for other boards too. > > * qrb2210-rb1 > * qrb4210-rb2 > * sm8450-hdk > * sm8650-hdk > > Any others? I checked, sm8550-hdk also doesn't seem to have the USB-A port. I think that's it for now. -- With best wishes Dmitry
