Re: [PATCH v4 12/18] usb: typec: qcom: Add Qualcomm PMIC TCPM support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 24/03/2023 01:13, Jianhua Lu wrote:
Can you show the printout of *(pmic_typec->base + TYPEC_SM_STATUS_REG) ?
[   53.120005] hub 1-1:1.0: 4 ports detected
[   58.675134] typec base is 0x1500
[   58.675148] TYPEC_SM_STATUS_REG is 0xa
[   58.675153] typec status reg is 0x150a
It should be correct.

So that is some very very strange value you have in that register.

This is from my WIP tree so the filename has changed but

+#define DEBUG 1
 #include <linux/delay.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
 #include <linux/interrupt.h>
@@ -181,6 +181,17 @@ int qcom_pmic_typec_port_set_vbus(struct pmic_typec_port *pmic_typec_port, bool
        if (ret)
dev_err(pmic_typec_port->dev, "vbus vsafe%dv fail\n", on ? 5 : 0);

+ dev_info(pmic_typec_port->dev, "%s sm_stat output 0x%08x\n", __func__, sm_stat);
+
+       ret = regmap_read(pmic_typec_port->regmap,
+                         pmic_typec_port->base + TYPEC_MISC_STATUS_REG,
+                         &val);
+       dev_info(pmic_typec_port->dev, "%s misc 0x%08x\n", __func__, val);
+       ret = regmap_read(pmic_typec_port->regmap,
+                         pmic_typec_port->base + TYPEC_SM_STATUS_REG,
+                         &val);
+ dev_info(pmic_typec_port->dev, "%s sm_status 0x%08x\n", __func__, val);

[ 17.098067] qcom,pmic-typec c440000.spmi:pmic@2:typec@1500: qcom_pmic_typec_port_set_vbus sm_stat output 0x000000b9

[ 17.108819] qcom,pmic-typec c440000.spmi:pmic@2:typec@1500: qcom_pmic_typec_port_set_vbus misc 0x000000cb

[ 17.118659] qcom,pmic-typec c440000.spmi:pmic@2:typec@1500: qcom_pmic_typec_port_set_vbus sm_status 0x000000b9

SM_STAT == 0xb9 => 10111001

1 : TYPEC_SM_USBIN_LT_LV
0 : TYPEC_SM_VBUS_VSAFE0V
1 : TYPEC_SM_VBUS_VSAFE5V
1 : not mapped
1 : not mapped
0 : not mapped
0 : not mapped
1 : not mapped

In other words, my hardware gives a clear indication of the appropriate transition.

Would appreciate if you could apply the above "patch"

That said I _am_ included to believe you and to do something about it, I will downgrade to a warning instead of returning on error in failure to transition to VSafeVX

Yeah though I'd appreciate seeing the output of the above patch to see if there's something we are missing.

Thanks for your review/time/input

---
bod



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux