This patch set is based on renesas-drivers-2018-04-17-v4.17-rc1 tag of renesas-drivers.git In last week, I submitted a patch as RFC [1]. But, I completely misunderstood the discussion of previous' one [2]. I marked this patch set as "RFC" because dtsi patch and udc patch are not good for upstreaming (should separate a few patches). I would like to know whether this way is good or not. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10347511/ [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10332865/ Changes from RFC: - Remove "device-connection-id" and "usb role switch driver" dt-bingings. - Remove drivers/of code. - Add a new API for find the connection by using graph on devcon.c and roles.c. - Use each new API on the rcar usb role switch and renesas_usb3 drivers. - Update the dtsi file for r8a7795. Yoshihiro Shimoda (6): dt-bindings: usb: add Renesas R-Car USB 3.0 role switch base: devcon: add a new API to find the graph usb: common: roles: add a new API to find the graph usb: role: rcar-usb3-role-switch: add support for R-Car SoCs usb: gadget: udc: renesas_usb3: add support for a usb role switch arm64: dts: renesas: r8a7795: add OF graph for usb role switch .../bindings/usb/renesas,rcar-usb3-role-sw.txt | 47 +++++ Documentation/driver-api/device_connection.rst | 4 +- arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795.dtsi | 38 +++++ drivers/base/devcon.c | 43 +++++ drivers/usb/common/roles.c | 30 ++++ drivers/usb/gadget/udc/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/usb/gadget/udc/renesas_usb3.c | 34 +++- drivers/usb/roles/Kconfig | 13 ++ drivers/usb/roles/Makefile | 1 + drivers/usb/roles/rcar-usb3-role-switch.c | 190 +++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/device.h | 2 + include/linux/usb/role.h | 2 + 12 files changed, 397 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/renesas,rcar-usb3-role-sw.txt create mode 100644 drivers/usb/roles/rcar-usb3-role-switch.c -- 1.9.1
