On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:11:02PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote: > On 05/16/2018 01:43 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:24:07PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote: > >> Hi Heikki, > >> > >> On 05/15/2018 09:30 AM, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Mats, > >>> > >>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:28:04PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote: > >>>> On 2018-05-11 13:14, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote: > >>>>>> On 2018-05-10 19:49, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:04:21AM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 05/09/2018 02:49 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 09:10:13PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2018 04:25 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 11:19:40PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even so, when the mux driver "set" function is called, it will just get the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode argument but since the mode (TYPEC_STATE_...) is overlapping for different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AMs if I understand your proposal correctly, the mux also needs to know what AM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is active. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this imply that the mux set function signature need to change? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My plan was actually to propose we get rid of the current mux handling > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (just leave the orientation switch) in favour of the notifications I'm > >>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing with the type-c bus for the alternate modes. The current > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mux handling is definitely not enough, and does not work in every > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, like also you pointed out. > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, the mux need to subscribe to each svid:mode pair it is interested in using > >>>>>>>>>>>> typec_altmode_register_notifier() and then use those callbacks to switch the correct > >>>>>>>>>>>> signals to the connector. And a driver for an off-the-shelf mux device could have > >>>>>>>>>>>> the translation between svid:mode pairs and mux device specific control specified by > >>>>>>>>>>>> of/acpi properties. Right? > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. That is the plan. Would it work for you? > >>>>>>>>>> I think so. I'll give it a go. When about do you think you'll post the next version > >>>>>>>>>> of your RFC? Or do you have an updated series available somewhere public? > >>>>>>>>> I'll try to put together and post the next version tomorrow. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My original plan was actually to use just the notifications with the > >>>>>>>>> muxes, but one thing to consider with the notifications is that in > >>>>>>>>> practice we have to increment the ref count for the alt mode devices > >>>>>>>>> when ever something registers a notifier. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To me that does not feel ideal. The dependency should go the other way > >>>>>>>>> around in case of the muxes. That is why I liked the separate API and > >>>>>>>>> handling for the muxes felt better, as it will do just that. The mux > >>>>>>>>> is then a "service" that the port driver can as for, and if it gets a > >>>>>>>>> handle to a mux, the mux will have its ref count incremented. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So I think fixing the mux API would perhaps be better after all. > >>>>>>>>> Thoughts? > >>>>>>>> So, we're back to a mux API similar to the current one, where: > >>>>>>>> - the port driver and the mux driver are connected through "graph" > >>>>>>>> - alt mode driver finds its port mux using the typec class mux api > >>>>>>>> - the mux mode setting function arguments now include both svid and mode > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I like that. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> One thought that popped up again is if we, somewhere down the line, > >>>>>>>> will see some super device that support many different alternate modes > >>>>>>>> on the same port and therefore will need to have multiple mux devices? > >>>>>>>> However I think the mux api could be extended (later on) to support some > >>>>>>>> aggregate mux device that manages multiple physical devices. > >>>>>>> If we simply had always a mux for every alternate mode, that would not > >>>>>>> be a problem. So the port would have its own mux, and every supported > >>>>>>> alternate mode also had its own. I think that removes the need to deal > >>>>>>> with the svid:mode when using the muxes, as they are already tied to a > >>>>>>> specific alternate modes, right? With a single mux device, for example > >>>>>>> pi3usb30532, the driver just needs to register a mux for the port and > >>>>>>> separate mux for DP, but I don't think that's a huge problem. > >>>>>> Hmm... As an hypothetical example I have written a driver for another mux > >>>>>> from TI and according to its data sheet: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> """ > >>>>>> The HD3SS460 is a generic analog differential > >>>>>> passive switch that can work for any high speed > >>>>>> interface applications as long as it is biased at a > >>>>>> common mode voltage range of 0-2V and has > >>>>>> differential signaling with differential amplitude up to > >>>>>> 1800mVpp.... > >>>>>> """ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What I am thinking is that it e.g. would be possible to use this/a mux with USBSS + > >>>>>> 2ch DP + 2ch something else (HDMI?, ThunderBolt?, ???). The problem here is > >>>>>> that it is a general mux device so the driver writer does not know what types of > >>>>>> muxes to register. I guess it could also be configured using properties but that > >>>>>> would be very complicated. > >>>>> Why? All the mux driver needs to get from device properties is the > >>>>> SVID and the mode. > >>>> Sigh... Again, if the same mux handles signals for more than one alternate mode > >>>> the driver won't know what alternate mode is intended if it only receives the > >>>> connector state which use overlapping numbers for different alternate modes. > >>> You are missing the point. We are now registering separate struct > >>> typec_mux for every alt mode. The ->set callback will need to be > >>> implemented separately for every alt mode. > >>> > >>> So in case of TI HD3SS460, we need to initially register a struct > >>> typec_mux for DP and implement a function for the ->set callback for > >>> DP only. If we later need to support another alt mode with that mux > >>> (HDMI perhaps), we need to register second struct typec_mux and > >>> implement separate function for that alt mode alone and point the > >>> ->set callback of the second struct typec_mux to that. > >> No, I'm not missing the point... At least not that one :) > >> But I think you are missing my point that a driver for a general > >> purpose mux device will end up having to register a struct typec_mux > >> and implement a ->set function for every possible alternate mode > >> that eventually will exist (and can be used with that mux). > > OK, we are on the same page. So back to my question. I'll rephrase: > > How would separate ->set functions differ from delivering the > > SVID:mode on top of the SVID specific connector state to the mux? You > > still need to handle every alternate mode separately in the mux > > driver. > > My idea, as I tried to explain before, is to use properties for mapping > mux device specific states to svid:mode:state. The mux driver would not > need to know anything about alternate modes, the responsibility would be > with the system architect to get the mapping right in firmware. OK, I understand. I'm a little bit scared about that kind of mappings. At least the connector state value we are dealing with here is Linux kernel specific index number, so I don't know if it's OK to get that from a device property. I wonder if string identifiers would be more acceptable for hardware descriptions? Strings or numbers, I guess we would need to document somewhere to which alternate mode connector state a number/string is mapped to. I don't know if OF bindings is enough? Btw. I'm not convinced we would ever get this information from ACPI tables on devices targeted for windows, but let's not worry about that now. In any case, I'm not against your idea. > > I doubt that HD3SS460 will (or even can) be used with anything else > > except DP. Maybe with HDMI. It definitely will not be usable with all > > alternate modes. Realistically, I think we are talking about two, max > > three alternate modes any mux driver will ever need to handle. > > I'm not so sure. Time will tell. > And using HD3SS460 as an example, there are multiple ways to connect the > DP signals to the MUX that the hw designer may want to take advantage of > to get the best possible lay-out OK. Thanks, -- heikki -- 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
