Hi, Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > On Wed 07 Jul 20:06 PDT 2021, Peter Chen wrote: >> > >> >> On 21-07-07 14:03:19, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >> >> > On Tue 06 Jul 20:57 CDT 2021, Peter Chen wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Allow me to reorder your two questions: >> >> > >> >> > > And why using a notifier need to concern core's deferral probe? >> >> > >> >> > The problem at hand calls for the core for somehow invoking >> >> > dwc3_qcom_vbus_overrride_enable() with a pointer to dwc3_qcom passed. >> >> > >> >> > This means that dwc3-qcom somehow needs to inform the dwc3-core about >> >> > this (and stash the pointer). And this can't be done until dwc3-core >> >> > actually exist, which it won't until dwc3_probe() has completed >> >> > successfully (or in particular allocated struct dwc). >> >> >> >> Maybe you misunderstood the notifier I meant previous, my pointer was >> >> calling glue layer API directly. >> >> >> >> Role switch is from dwc3-core, when it occurs, it means structure dwc3 has >> >> allocated successfully, you could call glue layer notifier at function >> >> dwc3_usb_role_switch_set directly. >> >> Some references of my idea [1] [2] >> >> >> >> [1] Function ci_hdrc_msm_notify_event at ci_hdrc_msm_notify_event >> >> [2] https://source.codeaurora.org/external/imx/linux-imx/tree/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c?h=lf-5.10.y#n205 >> >> >> > >> > Hi Peter, I took a proper look at this again, hoping to find a way to >> > pass a callback pointer from dwc3-qcom to the dwc3 core, that can be >> > called from __dwc3_set_mode() to inform the Qualcomm glue about mode >> > changes. >> >> I would rather keep the strict separation between glue and core. > > On the surface that seems nice, but obviously there are issues with > the approach. It's also not how pretty much every other instance of > licensed IP blocks are structured. > > The specific need here seems to be multiple entities needing role > switch notifications. Seems like that should be solved in a generic > way. right, solve it generically without breaking the module isolation ;-) -- balbi
