On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 07:16:03PM +0200, Mats Karrman wrote: > On 2018-06-07 14:01, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 09:22:56AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 06-06-18 23:36, Mats Karrman wrote: > > > > Hello Gentlemen, > > > > > > > > I'm trying to get my head around USB role switches in connection with Type-C ports > > > > and device-trees. So far I have not found much documentation, e.g. there are no > > > > device-tree bindings documented and really no good examples in existing device > > > > trees, although there has been some attempts, e.g. [1] and [2]. Anyway, so I send > > > > you a couple of questions instead: > > > > > > > > 1) tcpm uses the port device struct to find a single usb_role_switch but there is > > > > room for three USB busses in the Type-C connector; one high speed and two (?) super- > > > > speed. These would not all come from the same controller (there might even be > > > > separate controllers for host and device mode for each bus). > > I believe USB 3.2 spec in practice says that the two superspeed > > "lanes" must to go to the same controller. Only one will be used for > > link training etc. The second one is pulled in after certain state of > > enumeration has been passed. > > > > So we may theoretically have two controllers to deal with, one for > > USB2 and another for USB3, but not three. > > > > But in any case, let's not try to fix theoretical problems that may > > never exist. > > > > > AFAIK the 2nd superspeed USB bus is never used as such. There really is only 1 > > > USB bus on the Type-C connector, the combined USB-2 + the 1st superspeed bus, > > > physically these are 2 separate busses but that is purely for compatibility > > > reasons, logically there really only is 1 bus, just like a superspeed Type-A > > > connector has both busses physically but logically represents a single bus/port. > > > > > > > The case I am working on now only have a single USB2 otg controller so it should > > > > be possible to make that driver register a role switch but for other cases? > > > I guess theoretically a device could use separate role switches / muxes for > > > the USB-2 and USB-3 busses, but that would be weird. So lets cross that bridge > > > when we reach it. > > > > > > > I imagine it would be possible to create a composite driver as a proxy for all role > > > > switches but that would probably be different for every platform/product - not > > > > very elegant. Could the role switch infrastructure be extended to handle arbitrary > > > > sets of coordinated switches? > > > As said lets cross that bridge when we reach it. > > Agreed. > > OK, I'm buying what you're saying. After reading some manuals for USB3 controllers > and USB3 equipped SoC's I realize that most USB3 controllers seem to also support > USB2. Makes things easier, although not as flexible as I imagined. > One thing that led me astray was the comment for usb_role_switch_register() and the > separate device struct pointers for usb2/usb3/udc in the usb_role_switch_desc struct. > Still not totally clear to me what they are for? They are not really used for anything. Well, not yet at least. Even if there is only a single physical controller, in case of host, there will be separate logical devices representing the USB2 bus the USB3 bus. UDC is just UDC, the device is the physical controller. I added those usb2/usb3/udc handles to the structure because a long time a go somebody requested that we should have a way in user space to see the USB buses we are dealing with somehow. So the idea was never to actually use those in the code. That's why I'm talking about symlinks in the TODO comment. But if those are not useful, or confusing, I'm happy to drop them. > > > > 2) How should the connection between the Type-C port and the switches best be > > > > expressed in a device tree? Using graph I presume, but should it be mixed into the > > > > existing "usb-connector" or should this be a separate block? > > I don't know? > > > > I'm not super comfortable proposing things for these bindings because > > my knowledge of DT is a bit limited. I mostly work with ACPI based > > platforms. > > > > I'm not even completely sure device graph is usable in our case, > > though I pretty sure it is. > > > > > > I think it is unfortunate that the graph use numeric addresses that need to be > > > > fixed by documentation and already I see problems with the current assignment > > > > (0=HS, 1=SS, 2=SBU), e.g. if the host and device mode are handled by different > > > > controllers. Graph do support multiple endpoints for one port but then we have > > > > another level of magic numbers which does not exactly make things easier > > > > (e.g. 0=dual or host controller, 1=device controller, 2=mode switch). > > > The graph stuff is more Heikki's specialty so I will let Heikki answer this. > > I'm not really a graph expert. It is just the only tool in kernel I > > can see that allows us to link together all these different components > > in HW description, and which has support for both DT and ACPI in Linux > > kernel. That is the only reason I've talked about it. > > > > One of the motivations for the device connection API was that it hides > > the actual method these components are linked together in HW > > description. What ever the method is, device graph or something else > > (we can support different ways), the drivers don't need to know about > > it. > > Ahh, this is complicated and the lack of examples makes it a bit hard to > digest. Is it your expectation that the OF graph parsing code will be calling > device_connection_add() for every graph connection found in the device > tree or maybe for every connection with an "id" property? No, the idea is that we parse the graph in device_connection_find_match(). > (Ugh, just realized that the "reg" numeric value of the endpoint node is > put in the "id" field of the endpoint struct, bad luck...). Isn't the "compatible" property the one that should be used in this case? The remote endpoint just has to have compatible property matching the con_id, no? My worry is that currently there is no function to convert a fwnode to device. With ACPI it is possible already, but only to the first device bind to the node (ACPI device node can be bind to multiple devices). I don't think there is a function to convert OF node to device. We could of course workaround this problem and add fwnode member(s) to the device_lookup structure. The callers would then have to check is fwnode or the endpoint (device) name being used, which is not ideal IMO. 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
