Hi Heiko, On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:36:55PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > Hi, > > I'm currently trying to wrap my head around the new typec subsystem and > also how to do it correctly on Rockchip rk3399 devices. > > The issue (and Guenter might know quite a bit about that) is that on > ChromeOS devices the embedded controller hides the whole tcpm/vdm > logic from the operating system and just provides a custom interface to > query things like cable state, display-port hotplug status and so on. > > So right now the rk3399-typec-phy uses that extcon-based interface to > get all status changes but that of course leaves out all systems directly > talking to a fusb302. I did a small drawing to showcase that: > > ------------- ------------------ > | typec-phy |----| extcon-cros-ec |\ > ------------- ------------------ \ > | \ \ > ------------- \ ------------------ \ ----------- > | cdn-dp | \| ????? |-----| fusb302 | > ------------- ------------------ ----------- > > So to bring everything on the same page, I guess the cros-ec extcon > (drivers/extcon/extcon-usbc-cros-ec.c) should somehow use the typec > functions instead of implementing an extcon? I don't think the two necessary exclude each other. You can continue to register the extcon device and use it for communication with the phy driver, and also register your Type-C port(s), partners, and optionally the port and partner alternate modes. I guess Guenter has patches for that already? It looks to me like that phy driver could just register a Type-C switch for the orientation, and mux for the mode. Those seem to be the only details the driver needs from extcon-usbc-cros-ec. > But from reading into the typec code, it somehow looks like the > typec framework expects to be in control of things like altmode > negotiations, or am I misreading something? The alternate mode drivers will assume they are in control of the negotiation with the partner, but note that you will not always need them. The rest of the code in the framework doesn't expect to be in control of the communication. If the EC (or some other microcontroller) firmware is taking care of the actual entering and configuring of the alternate modes, the port driver (so extcon-usbc-cros-ec in your case) will need to "emulate" the VDM communication if the alt mode drivers need to be used, and that means they need to do so with every supported alternate mode separately. Of course if the details that for example the DisplayPort alt mode driver supplies to the user space is not relevant on your system, and there is no requirement to allow the user to be able to reconfigure the DisplayPort alt mode (note: you will also be unable to exit the mode from sysfs in this case), you can still register the partner alt mode device and simply allow the binding to the driver fail, or don't register the partner alt modes with the USB Type-C framework at all. I've prepared patches for the ucsi driver that add displayport alt mode support to it. UCSI is just a standardised firmware interface for USB Type-C conncetors, so the situation is exactly the same as with extcon-usbc-cros-ec. I was planning to send the patches out for review after next -rc1, but I guess I could send a RFC already. With UCSI we do have a requirement to allow the user to reconfigure the DisplayPort alternate mode if needed. Br, -- heikki
