On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 2:12 PM Ferry Toth <fntoth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Op 23-09-2022 om 18:42 schreef Andy Shevchenko:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 04:32:55PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 3:23 AM Ferry Toth <fntoth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On 22-09-2022 12:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 09:49:07AM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > FYI: For now I sent a revert, but if we got a solution quicker we always
> > can choose the course of actions.
> >
> >>> If the extcon device exists, get the mode from the extcon device. If
> >>> the controller is DRD and the driver is unable to determine the mode,
> >>> only then default the dr_mode to USB_DR_MODE_PERIPHERAL.
> >>>
> >>> According to Ferry (Cc'ed) this broke Intel Merrifield platform. Ferry, can you
> >>> share bisect log?
> >>>
> >>> I can but not right now. But what I did was bisect between 5.18.0 (good) and 5.19.0 (bad) then when I got near the culprit (~20 remaining) based on the commit message I tried 0f01017191384e3962fa31520a9fd9846c3d352f "usb: dwc3: Don't switch OTG -> peripheral if extcon is present" (bad) and commit before that (good).
> >>>
> >>> The effect of the patch is that on Merrifield (I tested with Intel Edison Arduino board which has a HW switch to select between host and device mode) device mode works but in host mode USB is completely not working.
> >>>
> >>> Currently on host mode - when working - superfluous error messages from tusb1210 appear. When host mode is not working there are no tusb1210 messages in the logs / on the console at all. Seemingly tusb1210 is not probed, which points in the direction of a relation to extcon.
> >>>
> >>> Taking into account the late cycle, I would like to revert the change. And
> >>> Ferry and I would help to test any other (non-regressive) approach).
> >>>
> >>> I have not yet tested if a simple revert fixes the problem but will tonight.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would be happy to test other approaches too.
> >>
> >> It's a bit hard for me to suggest an alternative approach without
> >> knowing how things are breaking in this case. I'd love to order one of
> >> those boards to repro and fix this on my end, but it looks like this
> >> HW is EOLed and out of stock in most places. If you guys know how to
> >> get my hands on those boards I'm all ears.
> > There are still some second hand Intel Edison boards flying around
> > (but maybe cost a bit more than expected) and there are also
> > Dell Venue 7 3740 tablets based on the same platform/SoC. The latter
> > option though requires more actions in order something to be boot
> > there.
> >
> > In any case, it's probably quicker to ask Ferry or me for testing.
> > (Although currently I have no access to the board to test OTG, it's
> > remote device which I can only power on and off and it has always
> > be in host mode.)
> >
> >> Barring that, Ferry can you dig more into this failure? E.g. is it this hunk
> >>
> >> @@ -85,7 +86,7 @@ static int dwc3_get_dr_mode(struct dwc3 *dwc)
> >> * mode. If the controller supports DRD but the dr_mode is not
> >> * specified or set to OTG, then set the mode to peripheral.
> >> */
> >> - if (mode == USB_DR_MODE_OTG &&
> >> + if (mode == USB_DR_MODE_OTG && !dwc->edev &&
> >> (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB_ROLE_SWITCH) ||
> >> !device_property_read_bool(dwc->dev, "usb-role-switch")) &&
> >> !DWC3_VER_IS_PRIOR(DWC3, 330A))
> >> @@ -1632,6 +1633,51 @@ static void dwc3_check_params(struct dwc3 *dwc)
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> that's problematic or moving
> > I think you wanted to revert only this line and test?
>
> On v6.0-rc6 and reverting manually only this line
>
> - if (mode == USB_DR_MODE_OTG && !dwc->edev &&
>
> + if (mode == USB_DR_MODE_OTG &&
>
> host mode still does not work (no change visible).
Cool, thanks for checking that. Don't think I have any more
experiments off the top of my head to run. I'll have to go read that
code more. I'll reply in the thread if I have something new to
try/say.
>
> >
> >> static int dwc3_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> {
> >> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> >> @@ -1744,6 +1790,13 @@ static int dwc3_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> goto err2;
> >> }
> >>
> >> + dwc->edev = dwc3_get_extcon(dwc);
> >> + if (IS_ERR(dwc->edev)) {
> >> + ret = PTR_ERR(dwc->edev);
> >> + dev_err_probe(dwc->dev, ret, "failed to get extcon\n");
> >> + goto err3;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> ret = dwc3_get_dr_mode(dwc);
> >> if (ret)
> >> goto err3;
> >>
> >> to happen earlier?
> > It is not always possible to have an extcon driver available, that's why in
> > some cases the probe of it defers. I dunno how your patch supposed to work
> > in that case.
> >
> >> Does tracing the "mrfld_bcove_pwrsrc" driver (the
> >> excton provider in this case AFIACT) show anything interesting?
> > I believe there is nothing interesting.
> >
