On 9/4/19 01:34, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Tue 03 Sep 14:45 PDT 2019, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
>> Quoting Jack Pham (2019-09-03 10:39:24)
>>> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 08:23:04AM +0200, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
>>>> On 8/30/19 20:28, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>>> Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2019-08-30 09:45:20)
>>>>>> On Fri 30 Aug 09:01 PDT 2019, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The USB-C connector is attached both to the HS and SS PHYs, so I think
>>>>>>>>> you should represent this external to this node and use of_graph to
>>>>>>>>> query it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but AFAICS we wont be able to retrieve the vbux-supply from an external
>>>>>>>> node (that interface does not exist).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rob, do you have a suggestion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shouldn't the vbus supply be in the phy? Or is this a situation where
>>>>>>> the phy itself doesn't have the vbus supply going to it because the PMIC
>>>>>>> gets in the way and handles the vbus for the connector by having the SoC
>>>>>>> communicate with the PMIC about when to turn the vbus on and off, etc?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's correct, the VBUS comes out of the PMIC and goes directly to the
>>>>>> connector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The additional complicating factor here is that the connector is wired
>>>>>> to a USB2 phy as well, so we need to wire up detection and vbus control
>>>>>> to both of them - but I think this will be fine, if we can only figure
>>>>>> out a sane way of getting hold of the vbus-supply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it really matter to describe this situation though? Maybe it's
>>>>> simpler to throw the vbus supply into the phy and control it from the
>>>>> phy driver, even if it never really goes there. Or put it into the
>>>>> toplevel usb controller?
>>>>>
>>>> that would work for me - the connector definition seemed a better way to
>>>> explain the connectivity but since we cant retrieve the supply from the
>>>> external node is not of much functional use.
>>>>
>>>> but please let me know how to proceed. shall I add the supply back to
>>>> the phy?
>>
>> So does the vbus actually go to the phy? I thought it never went there
>> and the power for the phy was different (and possibly lower in voltage).
>>
>
> No, the PHYs use different - lower voltage - supplies to operate. VBUS
> is coming from a 5V supply straight to the connector and plug-detect
> logic (which is passive in this design).
>
>>>
>>> Putting it in the toplevel usb node makes sense to me, since that's
>>> usually the driver that knows when it's switching into host mode and
>>> needs to turn on VBUS. The dwc3-qcom driver & bindings currently don't
>>> do this but there's precedent in a couple of the other dwc3 "glues"--see
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/{amlogic\,dwc3,omap-usb}.txt
>>>
>>> One exception is if the PMIC is also USB-PD capable and can do power
>>> role swap, in which case the VBUS control needs to be done by the TCPM,
>>> so that'd be a case where having vbus-supply in the connector node might
>>> make more sense.
>>>
>>
>> The other way is to implement the code to get the vbus supply out of a
>> connector. Then any driver can do the work if it knows it needs to and
>> we don't have to care that the vbus isn't going somewhere. I suppose
>> that would need an of_regulator_get() sort of API that can get the
>> regulator out of there? Or to make the connector into a struct device
>> that can get the regulator out per some generic connector driver and
>> then pass it through to the USB controller when it asks for it. Maybe
>> try to prototype that out?
>>
>
> The examples given in the DT bindings describes the connector as a child
> of a PMIC, with of_graph somehow tying it to the various inputs. But in
> these examples vbus is handled by implicitly inside the MFD, where
> extcon is informed about the plug event they toggle vbus as well.
>
> In our case we have a extcon-usb-gpio to detect mode, which per Jorge's
> proposal will trickle down to the PHY and become a regulator calls on
> either some external regulator or more typically one of the chargers in
> the system.
>
>
> So if we come up with a struct device for the connector and some API for
> toggling the vbus we're going to have to fairly abstract entities
> representing pretty much the same thing - and in a design with a mux we
> would have a different setup.
I am a bit unclear - not sure if we have gone full circle on this
subject. what is then the direction to get this merged?
I did have look last week and the level of effort to support regulators
on external nodes is not neglectable meaning that I might not have the
time to deliver that feature (perhaps someone else wishes to take over?)
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
