On 13 March 2017 at 09:09, Jun Li <jun.li@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Baolin Wang [mailto:baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 6:52 PM >> To: Jun Li <jun.li@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>; Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Greg KH >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dmitry >> Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@xxxxxxxxx>; David Woodhouse >> <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; Marek Szyprowski >> <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Ruslan Bilovol <ruslan.bilovol@xxxxxxxxx>; >> Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Alan Stern >> <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx; Yoshihiro Shimoda >> <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>; >> Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>; John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>; >> Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; >> patches@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux PM list <linux- >> pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; USB <linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; device- >> mainlining@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 0/4] Introduce usb charger framework to deal with >> the usb gadget power negotation >> >> On 10 March 2017 at 16:27, Jun Li <jun.li@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Baolin Wang [mailto:baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx] >> >> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 3:15 PM >> >> To: Jun Li <jun.li@xxxxxxx> >> >> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>; Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Greg >> >> KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx>; >> >> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@xxxxxxxxx>; David Woodhouse >> >> <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; Marek Szyprowski >> >> <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Ruslan Bilovol >> >> <ruslan.bilovol@xxxxxxxxx>; Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; >> >> Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx; >> >> Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Lee Jones >> >> <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>; Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>; John Stultz >> >> <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>; Charles Keepax >> >> <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; >> >> patches@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux PM list <linux- >> >> pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; USB <linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; device- >> >> mainlining@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; LKML >> >> <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 0/4] Introduce usb charger framework to deal >> >> with the usb gadget power negotation >> >> >> >> On 10 March 2017 at 14:30, Jun Li <jun.li@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Will generic phy need add extcon as well? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, will add a 'struct extcon_dev*' in 'struct usb_phy', which >> >> >> >> will be common code. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I mean the common code need add 'struct extcon_dev' into both >> >> >> > 'struct phy' and 'struct usb_phy', right? as some/new usb phy >> >> >> > use that generic phy >> >> >> driver. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ah, you remind me. Seems we need also add one 'struct extcon_dev' >> >> >> into 'struct phy'. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Secondly, I also agreed with Peter's comments: Not only >> >> >> >> >> >> USB PHY to register an extcon, but also for the drivers >> >> >> >> >> >> which can detect USB charger type, it may be USB >> >> >> >> >> >> controller driver, USB type-c driver, pmic driver, and >> >> >> >> >> >> these drivers may not have an extcon device since the >> >> >> >> >> >> internal part can finish >> >> the vbus detect. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Whichever part can detect vbus, the driver for that part >> >> >> >> >> > must be able to find the extcon and trigger a notification. >> >> >> >> >> > Maybe one part can detect VBUS, another can measure the >> >> >> >> >> > resistance on ID and a third can work through the state >> >> >> >> >> > machine to determine if D+ and D- are shorted together. >> >> >> >> >> > Somehow these three need to work together to determine >> >> >> >> >> > what is >> >> >> >> >> plugged >> >> >> >> >> > in to the external connection port. Somewhere there much >> >> >> >> >> > an >> >> >> 'extcon' >> >> >> >> >> > device which represents that port and which the three >> >> >> >> >> > devices can find and can interact with. >> >> >> >> >> > I think it makes sense for the usb_phy to be the connection >> point. >> >> >> >> >> > Each of the devices can get to the phy, and the phy can >> >> >> >> >> > get to the >> >> >> >> extcon. >> >> >> >> >> > It doesn't matter very much if the usb phy driver creates >> >> >> >> >> > the extcon, or if something else creates the extcon and >> >> >> >> >> > the phy driver performs a lookup to find it (e.g. based on >> devicetree info). >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > The point is that there is obviously an external physical >> >> >> >> >> > connection, and so there should be an 'extcon' device that >> >> >> represents it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Peter & Jun, is it OK for you every phy has one extcon >> >> >> >> >> device to receive VBUS notification, especially for >> >> >> >> >> detecting the charger type by >> >> >> >> software? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > My understanding is phy/usb_phy as the connection point, will >> >> >> >> > send the notification to PMIC driver which actually control >> >> >> >> > the charge current, also this will be done in your common >> >> >> >> > framework, >> >> right? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not in USB charger framework. If we are all agree every usb_phy >> >> >> >> can register one extcon device, can get correct charger type >> >> >> >> and send out correct vbus_draw information, then we don't need >> >> >> >> USB charger framework as Neil suggested. So this will be okay >> >> >> >> for your case (especially for detecting the charger type by >> software) ? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In my case, charger detection is done by controller driver and I >> >> >> > need do charger type detection internally, and only pass the >> >> >> > current draw info via phy which will send out, this seems ok for >> >> >> > me, but I think it will be good if you or someone can show us an >> >> >> > example user based on the >> >> >> design Neil suggested. >> >> >> > Will you work out that common code if this USB charger framework >> >> >> > is not >> >> >> needed? >> >> >> >> >> >> I will add a 'struct extcon_dev*' in 'struct usb_phy' and struct >> >> >> phy“. Others are already ready if everyone has no complain about >> >> >> current design, except >> >> > >> >> > Only adding extcon_dev into usb_phy/phy and all others are ready? >> >> > My understanding you will also do: >> >> > - We need find a central place to send the notification(phy common >> part). >> >> >> >> That will include these implementation when adding extcon_dev. >> >> >> > >> > OK, thanks. >> > >> >> > - If the extcon_dev is directly added in usb_phy/phy, PMIC needs >> >> > some >> >> API to findup it. >> >> >> >> PMIC can find extcon device by phandle. >> > >> > extcon_dev(not a reference pointer) is directly added in usb_phy/phy, >> > not via devicetree, how PMIC find it by phandle? >> >> From my understanding, here we should add one pointer (extcon_dev *), >> since usb phy is not one external connect device. > > Agreed. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> my one concern. (I am afraid if it is enough to send out vbus draw >> >> >> information from USB phy driver, for example you will miss super >> >> >> speed (900mA), which need get the speed information from gadget >> >> >> driver.) >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Can we handle this in USB(so has super speed information) and just >> >> > send out 900mA directly? >> >> >> >> From Neil's suggestion, we only have one place to send out current >> >> information from usb phy, so I have this concern and doubt if we >> >> still need the USB charger framework. >> > >> > So if put it in phy/usb_phy, this is a problem, that only one place >> > should have the infor of both speed and usb state, how about put it at >> > usb_gadget, then, e.g. send the notification in >> usb_gadget_vbus_connect()? >> >> That is same what USB charger did, from this point, we need USB charger to >> send out vbus draw information according to speed and usb state. But I >> should listen to other guys suggestion. Peter and Felipe, what do you think? > > So now the only to do work is to find a common place to send the notification out > (based on gadget speed and sate). Yes. -- Baolin.wang Best Regards -- 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
