On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 6:51 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 8/10/20 6:11 PM, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote: > >>From the spec: > > "7.1.5 Response to Hard Resets > > Hard Reset Signaling indicates a communication failure has occurred and > > the Source Shall stop driving VCONN, Shall remove Rp from the VCONN pin > > and Shall drive VBUS to vSafe0V as shown in Figure 7-9. The USB connection > > May reset during a Hard Reset since the VBUS voltage will be less than > > vSafe5V for an extended period of time. After establishing the vSafe0V > > voltage condition on VBUS, the Source Shall wait tSrcRecover before > > re-applying VCONN and restoring VBUS to vSafe5V. A Source Shall conform > > to the VCONN timing as specified in [USB Type-C 1.3]." > > > > Signed-off-by: Badhri Jagan Sridharan <badhri@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c > > index 3ef37202ee37..e41c4e5d3c71 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c > > @@ -3372,13 +3372,19 @@ static void run_state_machine(struct tcpm_port *port) > > tcpm_set_state(port, SNK_HARD_RESET_SINK_OFF, 0); > > break; > > case SRC_HARD_RESET_VBUS_OFF: > > - tcpm_set_vconn(port, true); > > + /* > > + * 7.1.5 Response to Hard Resets > > + * Hard Reset Signaling indicates a communication failure has occurred and the > > + * Source Shall stop driving VCONN, Shall remove Rp from the VCONN pin and Shall > > + * drive VBUS to vSafe0V as shown in Figure 7-9. > > + */ > > + tcpm_set_vconn(port, false); > > tcpm_set_vbus(port, false); > > tcpm_set_roles(port, port->self_powered, TYPEC_SOURCE, > > tcpm_data_role_for_source(port)); > > - tcpm_set_state(port, SRC_HARD_RESET_VBUS_ON, PD_T_SRC_RECOVER); > > I am a bit concerned about this. If I understand correctly, it means that > we won't turn VBUS back on unless a SRC_HARD_RESET_VBUS_OFF PD event is received. > Is that correct ? What happens if that event is never received ? > > Thanks, > Guenter The term PD event is a little ambiguous to me. Trying to summarize the workflow. Lower level tcpc driver would have to call tcpm_vbus_change which would in-turn trigger TCPM_VBUS_EVENT and queries port->tcpc->get_vbus to get the vbus status. It is not really a PD protocol driven event hence the confusion. "What happens if that event is never received ?" Yeah TCPM would be in SRC_HARD_RESET_VBUS_OFF till the tcpc calls the tcpm_vbus_change. Do you suspect that existing tcpc would not have the capability to monitor vbus status while sourcing and call tcpm_vbus_change? Thanks, Badhri > > break; > > case SRC_HARD_RESET_VBUS_ON: > > + tcpm_set_vconn(port, true); > > tcpm_set_vbus(port, true); > > port->tcpc->set_pd_rx(port->tcpc, true); > > tcpm_set_attached_state(port, true); > > @@ -3944,7 +3950,11 @@ static void _tcpm_pd_vbus_off(struct tcpm_port *port) > > tcpm_set_state(port, SNK_HARD_RESET_WAIT_VBUS, 0); > > break; > > case SRC_HARD_RESET_VBUS_OFF: > > - tcpm_set_state(port, SRC_HARD_RESET_VBUS_ON, 0); > > + /* > > + * After establishing the vSafe0V voltage condition on VBUS, the Source Shall wait > > + * tSrcRecover before re-applying VCONN and restoring VBUS to vSafe5V. > > + */ > > + tcpm_set_state(port, SRC_HARD_RESET_VBUS_ON, PD_T_SRC_RECOVER); > > break; > > case HARD_RESET_SEND: > > break; > > >
