On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:29 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 5:54 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 02:53:48PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > On Rockchip rk3288 there's a hardware quirk where we need to assert > > > the reset signal to the PHY when we get a remote wakeup on one of the > > > two ports. Document this quirk in the bindings. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > Changes in v2: None > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.txt | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.txt > > > index 6dc3c4a34483..f70f3aee4bfc 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.txt > > > @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ Refer to phy/phy-bindings.txt for generic phy consumer properties > > > - g-rx-fifo-size: size of rx fifo size in gadget mode. > > > - g-np-tx-fifo-size: size of non-periodic tx fifo size in gadget mode. > > > - g-tx-fifo-size: size of periodic tx fifo per endpoint (except ep0) in gadget mode. > > > +- snps,reset-phy-on-wake: If present indicates that we need to reset the PHY when > > > + we detect a wakeup. This is due to a hardware errata. > > > > Synopsys or Rockchip errata? > > > > Ideally, this should be implied by the controller or phy compatible. > > I have no idea. The errata was described to me by Rockchip but I > don't know if it's common to more than one board. > > You're right that we could do it on the controller compatible, but we > have to be careful. The two ports on rk3288 currently have the same > compatible string but the errata only applies to one of them. ...so > I'd have to cue on not just the compatible string but also detect > whether we're on the "OTG" port of the "host only" port. That's not > too hard, though since it is probe-able. > > I'm happy to spin this but I'll wait to hear from Felipe. This is > already in his testing tree, so presumably I should do a follow-up > patch. ...but if he wants me to re-post I can do that too. Okay, I guess it is fine as-is. Rob
