Hello Rob,
On 7/21/2020 10:27 PM, Tejas Joglekar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 7/21/2020 3:17 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> Tejas Joglekar <Tejas.Joglekar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> On 7/6/2020 12:13 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Tejas Joglekar <Tejas.Joglekar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>> @@ -95,6 +95,10 @@ int dwc3_host_init(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>>>>>> if (dwc->usb2_lpm_disable)
>>>>>> props[prop_idx++] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("usb2-lpm-disable");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + if (dwc->sgl_trb_cache_size_quirk)
>>>>>> + props[prop_idx++] =
>>>>>> + PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("sgl-trb-cache-size-quirk");
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> /**
>>>>>> * WORKAROUND: dwc3 revisions <=3.00a have a limitation
>>>>>> * where Port Disable command doesn't work.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Does this implementation looks good to you? Rob has some concerned over the DT entries,
>>>>> you suggested using compatible string with this quirk addition.
>>>>> Can you please brief about how you would like to have this quirk implemented?
>>>>> I can send the updated patch. My patch series is pending for merge just because of the
>>>>> DT and quirk issue. Can you please help?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, you need to get into an agreement with Rob :-) I don't mind having
>>>> extra DT flags for things which can't be detected in runtime, Rob
>>>> disagrees.
>>>>
>>> The compatible string is not suitable option as it does not work with platform drivers
>>> with PCI based system. Also Synopsys controllers IP version register is not visible to xhci
>>> driver and hence we don't have separate compatible string for each Synopsys version on the
>>> xhci driver side.
>>> Due to which I depend on DT flag addition for the quirk. Can we add these DT flags and quirk?
>>
>> As I said, I'm well aware of the situation regarding usage of compatible
>> strings and the fact that dwc3 must work on PCI and non-PCI systems (I
>> wrote the thing as it is after all). The person blocking new quirk flags
>> is Rob, not me. You need to convince Rob that this is the way to go.
>>
> @Felipe: Sorry for confusion if any, previous mail was intended for Rob asking about his approval.
>
>> Rob, ball's in your court. Sorry.>
> @Rob: As I and Felipe have mentioned before, it is very much necessary to have quirk flags
> for the current changes as compatible string would not be a solution for PCI and non-PCI
> systems. Can you please approve this change ? If you have any concern about naming or any
> other thing, please let us know.
>
Can you please comment?
Thanks & Regards,
Tejas Joglekar
