Hi Nikolay, Thanks for the report. On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:07:55PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 28.08.23 г. 17:52 ч., Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > > [Resending as I had initially attached a full acpi dump and it got > > bounced from the usb mailing list] > > > > Hello, > > > > I'm not able to use usb PD on a Lenovo Thinkpad P15gen2 laptop. It's > > equipped with 2 thunderbolt ports and a usb 3.2 gen2 usb port, all of > > which are supposed to support PD 2.0: > > <snip> > So I've been debugging this and what the PPM reports is the following: > > modprobe-529501 [004] ..... 33507.058332: ucsi_register: Supported UCSI spec: 100 > kworker/4:0-524223 [004] ..... 33507.486591: ucsi_init_work: Connectors supported: 3 > kworker/4:0-524223 [004] ..... 33507.486592: ucsi_init_work: GET_CAP: USB_PD: 0 TYPEC_CURRENT: 1 POWER_VBUS: 0, POWER_OTHER: 0, POWER_AC_SUPPLY: 1, BATTERY_CHARGING: 0 bcVersion: 0x102 typec_version: 0x100 pd_version: 0x200 PDO_DETAILS: 0 > kworker/4:0-524223 [004] ..... 33507.682726: ucsi_init_work: [Register port 1]: OPMODE: E4 flag:1 > kworker/4:0-524223 [004] ..... 33508.850438: ucsi_init_work: [Register port 2]: OPMODE: E4 flag:1 > kworker/4:0-524223 [004] ..... 33509.986672: ucsi_init_work: [Register port 3]: OPMODE: E4 flag:1 > > > So all three ports support DRP/USB2/USB3/ALT_MODE and they can be a provider. > > > I find it strange that USB_PD is reported as 0 yet pd_version is reported as 2. I contacted Lenovo's support and they confirmed that this particular model indeed supports PD 3.0 on all USBC ports. > > I see a couple of problems with the current upstream code: > > 1. It assumes that USB_PD is valid because the PD version from pd_version is being propagated to several places (like in ucsi_register_port() cap->pd_revision = ucsi->cap.pd_version;) This part should be fixed. > 2. When typec_register_port() is called from ucsi_register_port() cap->pd is 0 hence the port->pd = cap->pd; assignment in typec_register_port is a noop. In fact I don't see where cap->pd is being initialized since we initialize con->pd when we call usb_power_delivery_register in ucsi_register_port(). That "pd" member in struct typec_capability is optional. It can be used if the driver has a set of USB PD capabilities meant for USB Type-C port ready before the port is registered, but in UCSI driver the PD stuff are registered after the port. So I'm not sure there is anything wrong here. > Is it mandatory that GET_PDOS is supported if PD is supported, the UCSI spec doesn't say anything other than GET_PDOS is optional and signaled by bit in the GET_CAP call ? It looks like nobody ever checked is the command supported or not before using it. That's a bug. thanks, -- heikki
