Hi Roger,
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Usage model:
> -----------
>
> - The OTG controller device is assumed to be the parent of
> the host and gadget controller. It must call usb_otg_register()
> before populating the host and gadget devices so that the OTG
> core is aware that it is an OTG device before the host & gadget
> register. The OTG controller must provide struct otg_fsm_ops *
> which will be called by the OTG core depending on OTG bus state.
I'm wondering if the requirement that the OTG controller be the parent
of the USB host/device-controllers makes sense. For some context, I'm
working on adding dual-role support for Tegra210, specifically on a
system with USB Type-C. On Tegra, the USB host-controller and USB
device-controller are two separate IP blocks (XUSB host and XUSB
device) with another, separate, IP block (XUSB padctl) for the USB PHY
and OTG support. In the non-Type-C case, your OTG framework could
work well, though it's debatable as to whether or not the XUSB padctl
device should be a parent to the XUSB host/device-controller devices
(currently it isn't - it's just a PHY provider). But in the Type-C
case, it's an off-chip embedded controller that determines the
dual-role status of the Type-C port, so the above requirement doesn't
make sense at all.
My idea was to have the OTG/DRD controller explicitly specify its host
and device controllers, so in DT, something like:
otg-controller {
...
device-controller = <&usb_device>;
host-controller = <&usb_host>;
...
};
usb_device: usb-device@.... {
...
};
usb_host: usb-host@... {
...
};
What do you think?
Thanks,
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
