On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 05:52:15PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:11:22 +0800
> Li Jun <b47624@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 03:37:03PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:20:13 +0800
> > > Li Jun <b47624@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:18:53AM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:47:51 +0800
> > > > > Li Jun <b47624@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:37:37PM +0800, Roger Quadros wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:33:11 -0500
> > > > > > > Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Rob,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 08:26:20 -0500
> > > > > > > > > Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Li Jun <b47624@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:06:49AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Li Jun <jun.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Add otg version, srp, hnp and adp support for usb OTG port, then those OTG
> > > > > > > > >> >> > features don't have to be decided by usb gadget drivers.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Li Jun <jun.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > ---
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/generic.txt | 10 ++++++++++
> > > > > > > > >> >> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/generic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/generic.txt
> > > > > > > > >> >> > index 477d5bb..7386f4a 100644
> > > > > > > > >> >> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/generic.txt
> > > > > > > > >> >> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/generic.txt
> > > > > > > > >> >> > @@ -11,6 +11,12 @@ Optional properties:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > "peripheral" and "otg". In case this attribute isn't
> > > > > > > > >> >> > passed via DT, USB DRD controllers should default to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > OTG.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > + - otg-rev: tells usb driver the release number of the OTG and EH supplement
> > > > > > > > >> >> > + with which the device and its descriptors are compliant,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > + in binary-coded decimal (i.e. 2.0 is 0200H).
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> I would assume OTG 2.0 is somehow backwards compatible? Is this a h/w
> > > > > > > > >> >> dependency or a driver feature?
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Not fully compatible, OTG 2.0 extend the usb_otg_descriptor by adding a new
> > > > > > > > >> > member bcdOTG to identify the OTG version, this descriptor needs to be sent
> > > > > > > > >> > to OTG host with correct size and content, so we have to know which release
> > > > > > > > >> > version the OTG device is compliant with, either by menuconfig config or pass
> > > > > > > > >> > via DT.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> So you have to change the version depending on the host you are
> > > > > > > > >> connected to? That really seems strange that plugging in a OTG 2.0
> > > > > > > > >> device to an OTG 1.3 host would not work and doesn't make for a good
> > > > > > > > >> user experience.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No. The OTG version in the OTG descriptor for any device is usually fixed for the
> > > > > > > > > lifetime of the product.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let's assume it is 2.0.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you plug this to OTG 1.0 host, it won't be an issue as OTG 1.0 host doesn't
> > > > > > > > > read the BCD version.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That makes sense, but there was some discussion about the size mattering.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So is there a reason not to always report 2.0 with any kernel that has
> > > > > > > > 2.0 support?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A 2.0 host would still need to know if the attached OTG device is 1.0 or 2.0
> > > > > > > so we don't want to force existing 1.0 devices to 2.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > + - srp-support: tells OTG controllers we want to enable SRP.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > + - hnp-support: tells OTG controllers we want to enable HNP.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > + - adp-support: tells OTG controllers we want to enable ADP.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> I've recently run into a problem[1] and found that I have to disable
> > > > > > > > >> >> OTG in the kernel to get my device to work. Having to turn-off OTG
> > > > > > > > >> >> seems like the wrong solution, and shifting the problem to DT seems
> > > > > > > > >> >> wrong too. Why is this not a user configurable option (within whatever
> > > > > > > > >> >> h/w constraints there are)?
> > > > > > > > >> > The problem of below link, seems your device is claiming it's a HNP capable
> > > > > > > > >> > OTG device, but connecting to a non-OTG port of your Host, assume your Host
> > > > > > > > >> > does have a OTG port, your Host issue a A_ALT_HNP_SUPPORT request to your
> > > > > > > > >> > OTG device to remind it can use another port with HNP, but the request failed
> > > > > > > > >> > (maybe STALL by your device, this request is defined in OTG 1.3 but obsolete
> > > > > > > > >> > in OTG 2.0), so your Host just stopped enumeration of your device, this is not
> > > > > > > > >> > reasonable because current OTG code is some out of data.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Do PCs have OTG ports typically? My expectation is that if I plug in
> > > > > > > > >> an OTG device as a B device to any host port, that it will work as a
> > > > > > > > >> device no matter what the host OTG capabilities are. If I have to
> > > > > > > > >> change the kernel config or DT, that is a problem.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > AFAIK PCs don't have OTG ports.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you plug in OTG device to a non-otg host port it will work as normal B-device.
> > > > > > > > > The host doesn't request for OTG descriptors and doesn't care what OTG features it
> > > > > > > > > supports or not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is what I would expect. My testing and the bug report show otherwise.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > what kernel and platform are you on?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > I am trying to make those OTG feaures to be configurable options, you mean
> > > > > > > > >> > by sys?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Yes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > why do you need OTG features to be sysfs configurable other than for debugging?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't know. Buggy host perhaps? Why do you need them in DT?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll explain why we need in DT below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If they are truly debugging, then they would belong in debugfs rather
> > > > > > > > than sysfs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > agreed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> What are the valid combinations? When do we want these enabled or not?
> > > > > > > > >> >> Wouldn't default enabled be better?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > We want to enable all those support in kernel driver, but some platform or
> > > > > > > > >> > hardware may not want to enable any or some of them, so those hardware
> > > > > > > > >> > can disable it by not pass the property in dt, the 3 sub features of OTG are
> > > > > > > > >> > not mandatory for so called OTG device, normally we at least enable HNP, and
> > > > > > > > >> > SRP and ADP are optional.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Please answer my questions in the doc.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> We already have dr_mode property. How is it related to these?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > dr_mode states what mode the controller will operate in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > for dr_mode == "host" we don't care about these otg flags.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > for dr_mode == "peripheral" or dr_mode == "otg"
> > > > > > > > > we care about these OTG flags to create our OTG descriptor on the fly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then how do I specify my device is peripheral only even though I have
> > > > > > > > a DR controller?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > by specifying dr_mode = "peripheral" in the DT.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How is ID pin detect supposed to be supported? Do we need dr_mode = "idpin"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ID pin is not used in single role mode. It will be used only when dr_mode = "otg".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > dr_mode is to tell the device it will work at OTG mode(there is another simple
> > > > > > > > >> > dual role mode which is commom used but not HNP), srp/hnp/adp can further specify
> > > > > > > > >> > which protocol the OTG device will support.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> By simple DR, you mean ID pin detect, right. So please define how you
> > > > > > > > >> support just ID pin detect vs. other levels of capability. Does only
> > > > > > > > >> dr_mode = otg mean ID pin detect? That may be a problem for existing
> > > > > > > > >> DTs if you disable other OTG functions because they have not been
> > > > > > > > >> added to the DT, then that is a problem.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I'm feeling less convinced that this belongs in DT at all. Please
> > > > > > > > >> convince me otherwise.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes not specifying anything in DT should work and default to the
> > > > > > > > > best OTG version and features supported by the OTG controller.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Right, hence why I suggested disable flags, not enable flags.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I second that. They must be disable flags.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Disable flags may not work with current situation of gadget driver:
> > > > > > Currently each gadget class driver hard coded the OTG attributes
> > > > > > to be HNP | SRP, independent of controller driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is wrong in the first place. Gadget drivers shouldn't decide
> > > > > the OTG attributes. Platform code/DT should.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I totally agree the current code is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > > If gadget drivers define OTG flags then they cannot be used on
> > > > > different platforms with different OTG needs.
> > > > >
> > > > Agree too.
> > > >
> > > > But some platforms may already work with current "wrong" way, I do not want
> > > > to break them.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > E.g. some platform with OTG enabled: gadget->is_otg = 1
> > > > > > HNP and SRP are enabled by gadget driver, ADP = 0, this OTG port
> > > > > > can really support HNP and SRP, but not ADP.
> > > > >
> > > > > What if the platform on which the gadget driver is used doesn't want
> > > > > SRP enabled?
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know, there is no controller driver to override this setting,
> > > > maybe it still keeps SRP enabled even it does not support it in fact.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > if use disable flag, this platform has to add adp-disable property
> > > > > > otherwise it will report ADP support to the host.
> > > > >
> > > > > This issue won't happen if gadget driver doesn't define any OTG attributes.
> > > > >
> > > > But some existing platform already rely on gadget driver to define OTG
> > > > attributes, Can I break those already working platforms? I think it's hard
> > > > to figure out all this kind of platforms and then correct every one with
> > > > new approach.
> > > >
> > > > Who define this attributes doesn't matter, key is this attributes should
> > > > base on correct input.
> > > >
> > > > So my principle is to not break any existing platforms, and introduce new
> > > > approach, old platforms can work without any change.
> > >
> > > But we don't know which platforms use what so we need to define a sane
> > > default configuration for all gadgets. I don't think we can have a gadget
> > > specific configuration.
> > >
> > Yes, we don't know, what I can do is to keep all unchanged for those platforms
> > if those new properties doesn't appear at all. (i.e. SRP and HNP still enabled
> > in its otg descriptor anyway like current gadget driver does)
> >
> > > If anyone complains we need to ask them to set the right DT flags for their
> > > platform. I don't see any other way.
> > >
> >
> > My current way is to achieve this goal.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But with enable flags, I can check all those 3 properties,
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see why you can't do that with disable flags. Note that there are 2 things.
> > > > > 1) disable flags from DT
> > > > > 2) support flags from controller. This information is already known to the
> > > > > controller.
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on these 2 you can decide what OTG features you want to set/clear.
> > > > > And you can't combine the 2 by just defining enable flags in DT.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have the same understanding. So:
> > > > 1) In controller driver:
> > > > if (controller_can_support_srp(controller)) {
> >
> > This check only can be done in each controller driver.
> >
> > > > if (srp_enabled_in_dt(of))
> > > > gadget->srp_support = 1;
> > >
> > > Existing platforms don't have feature_enabled_in_dt so this will fail for all.
> >
> > Above code is for how "new" platform set new flags if it want to utilize those new
> > properties, existing platform doesn't need any code change. This is not common code
> > shared by all controller drivers, like gadget->is_otg, it should be set by specific
> > controller driver.
> >
> > > So need to have
> > > if (srp_not_disabled_in_dt(of))
> > > gadget->srp_support = 1;
> >
> > Maybe you think it's common code called by every platform.
> > I am putting it in my chipidea driver.
> >
> > >
> > > > }
> > > > 2) In gadget driver:
> > > > if (gadget->srp_support)
> > > > attribute |= SRP;
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> >
> > You may take a look my 9/22 patch to see how existing platform is handled:
> >
> > if (gadget->adp_support || gadget->hnp_support ||
> > gadget->srp_support) {
> > /* means th
> > if (gadget->adp_support)
> > otg_desc->bmAttributes |= USB_OTG_ADP;
> > if (gadget->hnp_support)
> > otg_desc->bmAttributes |= USB_OTG_HNP;
> > if (gadget->srp_support)
> > otg_desc->bmAttributes |= USB_OTG_SRP;
> > } else {
> > otg_desc->bmAttributes = USB_OTG_SRP | USB_OTG_HNP;
> > }
> >
> > This is common code will be called by every platform.
>
> So you are using gadget->xyz_support flags to determine if it is a legacy
> platform and that's why we have a problem with having disable flags in DT.
>
Other than those new flags, I have not found other good way to judge
whether some platform is a legacy one.
Directly use dt property? Then above code has to be moved to controller
driver, consequently the usb_otg_descriptor has to be allocated by
controller driver at runtime, and I have to create some new way to pass it
to gadget driver, for those legacy platform, I still need gadget driver to
allocate it...too complicated.
(You know, there are 2 different otg_desc structures: otg_desc and
otg_20_desc, I need select one and allocate it at runtime)
> This also has a side effect of SRP and HNP being enabled for any platform
> even if enable-srp/enable-hnp is not set in DT.
That's the current situation before my patch, not the side effect
brought by me.
> This will be more of a bug than supporting legacy users.
I have to leave the _existing_ bug there, because I can't know
which platform can really support HNP/SRP, which one cannot.
So I do not fix the _existing_ bug, meanwhile I also do not introduce
a new bug either. If some legacy platform with this bug, want to fix it,
fine, use dt or other way to set gadget->xyz_support correctly
in its controller driver, no more change needed.
Any other reason you think enable flags are still not reasonable?
>
> Instead we could have ADP disabled by default for all cases
> and expect enable-adp in DT to get it enabled. SRP/HNP could still
> be disable flags.
>
Yes, this can work, but seems they look some odd:), some are xxx_disable,
some are xxx_enable.
> Then your above code reduces to
>
> if (gadget->adp_support)
> otg_desc->bmAttributes |= USB_OTG_ADP;
> if (gadget->hnp_support)
> otg_desc->bmAttributes |= USB_OTG_HNP;
> if (gadget->srp_support)
> otg_desc->bmAttributes |= USB_OTG_SRP;
>
Yes if those code is put in controller driver of new platforms.
No if we put it in common routine and called by both new and
legacy platforms.
> cheers,
> -roger
>
> >
> > Those existing platforms do not use those new flags of gadget, so all are 0,
> > then otg_desc->bmAttributes = USB_OTG_SRP | USB_OTG_HNP. This is current
> > "wrong" way.
> >
> > If any platform want to use any new flags, then He must fully understand
> > those flags and change accordingly, set gadget->xxx_support in its controller
> > driver either by dt, or by other way(hard code...what ever).
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > 1)If none of them are passed, but gadget->is_otg == 1, I suppose it's
> > > > > > legacy platform, still set HNP and SRP as current gadget driver does,
> > > > > > works as before;
> > > > > > 2)If any one of them appear, I will set all those features by dt property.
> > > > > > 3)If some platform already based on those properties, wants to disable
> > > > > > all 3 OTG features, also not pass any one of them like 1), it will not
> > > > > > be a OTG device at all, set gadget->is_otg = 0 in its controller driver,
> > > > > > then no need set and report any OTG features, this can meet ID pin detect
> > > > > > case.
> > > > >
> > > > > With enable flags you don't get what you set.
> > > > > e.g. in DT, we might set enable-adp.
> > > > > but if controller doesn't support adp, you don't have ADP working.
> > > > > So this is misleading.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why someone might do that? If someone adds some property which is not supported
> > > > by its controller, of cos this feature cannot work.
> > >
> > > OK.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If some platform utilize those new properties, both enable and disable flags
> > > > can work, but for those existing platforms with HNP/SRP support, they have
> > > > no any new flags in its DT, I need make it work as before.
> > >
> > > Right, existing platforms need to work as is without DT changes. So features
> > > have to be enabled by default. That's another reason why we need disable-flags
> > > and not enable-flags in DT.
> >
> > You are right if current code enables all 3 features by default,
> > Unfortunately only SRP and HNP are enabled, ADP is disabled,
> >
> > The key point here is, if none of new properties is added, are there 2 cases
> > which we cannot differentiate one from the other?
> >
> > By disable flags, if none passed in dt, there are 2 cases:
> > 1) Legacy platforms(some may only support HNP and SRP, but no ADP).
> > 2) New platform, it can really support all 3 features.
> > I cannot differentiate 1) from 2), to correct set 1), I have to add
> > "adp-disable" for a legacy platform.
> >
> > By enable flags, if none passed in dt, there are 2 cases:
> > 1) Legacy platforms
> > 2) New platform, it cannot support any features, so it's not a OTG device
> > at all. Then the gadget->is_otg is 0, no any OTG related report needed.
> >
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
