Hi,
On 07-12-17 16:00, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
Hi Hans,
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 03:56:05PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 01-12-17 09:38, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for taking a look at this..
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:23:31PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi Heiko,
On 28-09-17 13:35, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
Hi guys,
The bus allows SVID specific communication with the partners to be
handled in separate drivers for each alternate mode.
Alternate mode handling happens with two separate logical devices:
1. Partner alternate mode devices which represent the alternate modes
on the partner. The driver for them will handle the alternate mode
specific communication with the partner using VDMs.
2. Port alternate mode devices which represent connections from the
USB Type-C port to devices on the platform.
The drivers will be bind to the partner alternate modes. The alternate
mode drivers will need to deliver the result of the negotiated pin
configurations to the rest of the platform (towards the port alternate
mode devices). This series includes API for that, however, not the
final implementation yet.
The connections to the other devices on the platform the ports have
can be described by using the remote endpoint concept [1][2] on ACPI
and DT platforms, but I have no solution for the "platform data" case
where we have neither DT nor ACPI to describe the connections for us.
Sorry about the slow reply, I've been a bit swamped with other stuff,
but now I would like to get back to this.
I've been trying to wrap my head around what you're proposing here and
I see how this can help with implementing display-port alternate mode
support, but I don't see how it is going to help with regular superspeed
USB support / the mux problem.
The problems I see / questions I have are:
1) This seems to be driven by having a bus using svid-s as match functions,
but the standard USB function does not have any svid, or at least currently
does not show as such under e.g. /sys/class/typec/port0/port0-partner
USB is the "normal" mode, not alt-mode. We don't need any specific
driver for the USB mode. In alternate modes, we have to communicate
with the partner using SVID specific messages, and that is what we
need the drivers for.
Ack, but we do still need to control the mux in USB-mode I was under
the impression that the alt-mode drivers would be responsible for
switching the mux to the right component in the graph, if (which
may not be true) the alt-mode drivers indeed will be the ones controlling
the mux, then we need a dummy alt-mode for USB mode and a dummy
alt-mode driver for that.
The Type-C/PD PHY/controller drivers (the port drivers) will be in
control of the dual-role (USB) mux, not an alternate mode driver. The
port driver will know if we need to be UFP or DFP in any case, so it
just needs to pass that detail to the mux driver. There is no need for
an extra driver in the middle just for that.
Right, but that only deals with the "USB MUX" i your ascii-art
diagram not with the one you labelled "MUX" and the one you labelled
"MUX" also needs to switch between "tristate(floating) / normal SuperSpeed USB /
upside-down SuperSpeed USB.
But logically we will have two muxes to deal with - one for the USB
handled by the port drivers, and one for the type-c handled by the
alt-mode drivers - even in case the same physical mux component
handles both cases on the platform.
Right, but as mentioned above even for just the non alt-mode Superspeed
USB stuff to work we also need to control the Type-C mux/switch.
2) The alt-mode drivers you are suggesting seem to be about 2 things:
a) Alt-mode specific PD communication
b) Telling other components about pin-configs, e.g. telling the i915 driver how
much display port lanes are configured
What this seems to miss a mechanism to control the mux between the "superspeed"
data-pairs on the port and the dp-port pins on the SoC / the superspeed USB
pins on the SoC. Even leaving display-port out of the picture for now we still
need to control the port -> SoC superspeed pins routing which need to be
one of: tristated (default) / normal / upside-down routing.
We will need to deliver the orientation to the GPU/DP drivers and I'm
not supporting that yet in this draft.
That depends, at least with the PI3USB30532 USB switch, the switch/mux
should take care of upside-downness, but I believe I remember some other
hw where the displayport lanes get swapped when upside down, so I guess
that we need to add info like if the upside-downness is handled inside
the mux to the graph info.
Good point. That needs to be considered.
I'm preparing a more complete
version of these, and I'll propose something for the orientation as
well, though it is a little bit out side the scope of this series.
That information comes from the device drivers or tcpm, not the
alternate mode drivers.
The USB MUX question is a separate topic, however, the idea of
describing the connections a Type-C port (or any usb port) has to
other components in ACPI and DT, including the USB mux, should be done
using device graph (remote-endpoints) in the future. For the existing
boards we need to figure out somekind of a lookup method to do the
same, and that is the biggest missing thing we still have IMO.
If you can provide proof-of-concept code for the graph stuff +
code to driver the mux from there, etc. perhaps even tested on
a device which has the graph in dt so that it actually works :)
Unfortunately I don't have actual hardware to test that with, but I
can add dummy devices to the ACPI tables that pretend to be muxes, and
link them to the type-c connector devices using the remote-endpoints.
I'm not going to use any of_* or acpi_* functions, nor DT platforms
for testing (I don't have access to any). I'm will use the generic
fnode_graph_* functions, so if I get something working on ACPI
platform, I will assume it works also on DT platforms.
Then I can try to implement a lookup method for my Cherry Trail +
Whiskey Cove PMIC + FUSB302 USB Type-C Controller + PI3USB30532
USB switch boards.
You know, you could actually test the code for me already with added
ACPI tables. I can write ASL for you? If you could also test the DP
alt-mode driver I have as well, I would really appreciate it.
With the remark / caution that this is a spare time project for me, so that
you may see bursts of activity followed by long-ish silence, sure I
would love to test this.
---------------
| Type-C port |
---------------
|
-------
/ MUX \
-----------
/ \
/ \
/ \
---------- ---------
| GPU | / USB MUX \
---------- -------------
/ \
/ \
/ \
------------------- ---------------------
| Host controller | | Device controller |
------------------- ---------------------
Yes this is pretty much what my HW looks like :)
### end Type-c discussion ###
### Related USB device/host mode switch discussion ###
Another problem for USB is even once the right pins on the port are routed to
the right pins on the SoC then the SoC may have an internal mux to route
all the USB pins (both USB-2 and superspeed) to either the host or device
USB controller.
My previous patches for this tried to use the mux framework for this, but that
was nacked because of a misunderstanding how the current mux framemork works.
The current mux framework is based on the notion of there being a shared
bus between e.g. the SoC and various devices, where the devices are not
directly addressable from the bus, but there is a mux in between which
connects the SoC to the device it wants to talk to. So the SoC can reach
all connected devices, but only one add at a time. To make this clear
a driver talking to one of the devices needs to switch the mux to a
specific device and then release the mux when it is done. If another
driver tries to switch the mux before it is released its request will
block until the mux gets released.
If the framework was designed for only such specific cases, I'm not
sure it should be called "mux framework" at all.
I think it was mainly designed to model (ARM + devicetree) boards
with i2c muxes on them.
With USB OTG / Type-C things are different, there is only one device
connected, and depending on which type of device is detected as being
connected we need to connect the OTG / Type-C port pins to the
corresponding controller inside the SoC. There is no "time-shared"
access to multiple devices at the same time. Thus the current mux
subsys is a poor match for the needs for USB OTG / Type-C.
One option I've been considering is to introduce a new usb_mux subsys
when I get around to this (hopefully sometime the coming month) which
will be modelled after the mux subsys, but without the "time-sharing"
concepts and thus without the need to release a mux setting before
the mux can be switched to route the data else where.
Wasn't that basically what Baolu proposed [1] ?
More or less, that seems to lack anyway to lookup a mux device though,
typically you will want to have one driver for the mux and another
which decides what the role should be, that second driver needs a way
to lookup the mux, so that it can then actually call portmux_switch()
(in Baolu's code) on the mux to switch its role.
I really hoped we had a generic mux framework instead of usb specific
one. How about if you call it "demux framework" :-)
I like Baolu's portmux name, and I like the over structure from the
existing mux framework, Peter Rosin the mux framework maintainer does
not really want to extend the existing mux framework for the Type-C
use-case it seems and perhaps more importantly the DT bindings for
the existing framework are a poor match for Type-C I think, so
maybe as part of the graph work you can do a new portmux; or
graphmux core (this can be quite small) which the Type-C code can
use and which ties into the graph DT bindings ?
I don't have any ideas for the mux subsystem (except that we
should probable use device graph as the method for the bindings). I
was hoping that we have a generic mux framework that we can use, but
we need it for USB, and to be honest, we need it quickly.
I was hoping that you will send a proposal for the usb_mux idea. If
you are too busy at the moment, let me know.
Ok, my plan was to simply copy + paste (with some renames) the existing
mux subsys (as I already have working code for that) and then rip-out
the "time-sharing" bits. I can still take a shot at doing that and
then we can see from there.
About my working code using the existing mux framework (which has been
more or less nacked), if you want to take a peek you can find it here:
https://github.com/jwrdegoede/linux-sunxi/commits/v4.14-footrail
The commits which are relevant to this start with the commit titled:
"mux: core: Add mux_control_get_optional() API"
and end with:
"platform/x86: intel_cht_int33fe: Add mux mappings for the Type-C port"
In any case, we still need a way to describe the connections. I don't
think we should propose yet an other framework specific lookup method.
There really should be a generic "device graph for board files"
solution that we could use also here. Well, ideally.
Ack, for me this is a sparetime project and I don't think having
2 chefs in the kitchen is going to help here. So I'm just going to
wait and see what you come up with.
I don't see any conflicts in our efforts, especially if we first
consider only the USB muxes. We really need a solution for the USB
muxes, not only because of USB Type-C,
Ack we need it for OTG on micro-USB connectors too.
and I'm not proposing anything
for that. All I'm doing is proposing a way we handle the alternate
modes inside the USB Type-C frameworks.
If you can prepare something for the usb_mux, I would really _really_
appreciate it. The lookup would be ideally something generic, but we
can hack initially.
I currently have a hack which assumes a lookup table gets filled by
platform specific code (platform/x86 drivers binding to some ACPI
devs in my case) I can easily port this from the existing not
as generic as we hoped mux framework to a new usb_mux framework.
If you've something which is
testable even if I still need to hack together the lookup stuff
let me know and I will try to get it going for my boards / use-case.
Cool, I'll start preparing the code for you. Can you send me ACPI dump
of the board so I can prepare the ASL for the remote endpoints?
I'll send you the dump in a private mail. Note the Type-C stuff
currently is mostly described by the int33fe device to which I currently
add a bunch of manual lookups for my mux WIP in this commit:
https://github.com/jwrdegoede/linux-sunxi/commit/6667304b5d10e74e3cdcfb6c8fba2bf1004e0761
The "WIDR" int33fe device (the one which has a non 0 _STA return) contains 4
I2cSerialBusV2 resources for 4 different chips attached to various i2c busses:
1. The Whiskey Cove pmic, which is also described by the INT34D3 ACPI device
2. Maxim MAX17047 Fuel Gauge Controller
3. FUSB302 USB Type-C Controller
4. PI3USB30532 USB switch
Not sure of this is relevant for your "remote endpoints" ASL, but in
case you need to tie them to something I guess the "WIDR" int33fe device
is the one to use.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
