Hi Alan, On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 09:32:29PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 03:09:12PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 03:17:01PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > As I said in prior version, this separate node and 'hub' phandle is not > > > going to work. You are doing this because you want a platform driver for > > > "realtek,rts5411". That may be convenient for Linux, but doesn't reflect > > > the h/w. > > > > I agree that the hardware representation isn't totally straightforward, however > > the description isn't limited to Linux: > > > > - there is a single IC (like the Realtek RTS5411) > > - the IC may require several resources to be initialized in a certain way > > - this may require executing hardware specific code by some driver, which > > isn't a USB device driver > > - the IC can 'contain' multiple USB hub devices, which can be connected to > > separate USB busses > > - the IC doesn't have a control bus, which somewhat resembles the > > 'simple-audio-amplifier' driver, which also registers a platform device > > to initialize its resources > > > > - to provide the functionality of powering down the hub conditionally during > > system suspend the driver (whether it's a platform driver or something else) > > needs know which USB (hub) devices correspond to it. This is a real world > > problem, on hardware that might see wide distribution. > > > > There were several attempts to solve this problem in the past, but none of them > > was accepted. So far Alan Stern seems to think the driver (not necessarily the > > binding as is) is a suitable solution, Greg KH also spent time reviewing it, > > without raising conceptual concerns. So it seems we have solution that would > > be generally landable from the USB side. > > > > I understand that your goal is to keep the device tree sane, which I'm sure > > can be challenging. If you really can't be convinced that the binding might > > be acceptable in its current or similiar form then please offer guidance > > on possible alternatives which allow to achieve the same functionality. > > You're really trying to represent this special IC in DT, right? Yes > Maybe if you don't call it a "hub" but instead something that better reflects > what it actually is and does, the description will be more palatable. Thanks for your suggestion. Datasheets from different manufacturers refer to these ICs as "USB hub controller". Calling the node "usb-hub-controller" would indeed help to distinguish it from the USB hub devices and represent existing hardware. And the USB device could have a "hub-controller" property, which also would be clearer than the current "hub" property. Rob, would this help to convince you? Thanks Matthias
