> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 4:13 PM > To: Pandey, Radhey Shyam <radhey.shyam.pandey@xxxxxxx> > Cc: mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx; javier.carrasco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > macpaul.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx; jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx; > stefan.eichenberger@xxxxxxxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; git (AMD-Xilinx) <git@xxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] usb: misc: onboard_dev: extend platform data to > add power on delay field > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 09:12:27PM +0530, Radhey Shyam Pandey wrote: > > Introduce dedicated field 'power_on_delay_us' in onboard platform data > > and update its delay for USB5744 configuration. Hub itself requires some > > delay after reset to get to state where configuration data is going to > > be accepted. Without delay upcoming support for configuration via SMBUS > > is reporting a failure on the first SMBus write. > > > > i2c 2-002d: error -ENXIO: BYPASS_UDC_SUSPEND bit configuration failed > > > > Similar delay is likely also required for default configuration but > > because there is enough time (code execution) between reset and usage > > of the hub any issue is not visible but it doesn't mean delay shouldn't > > be reflected. > > > > Signed-off-by: Radhey Shyam Pandey <radhey.shyam.pandey@xxxxxxx> > > Suggested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > This constant addition of "platform data" seems to be duplicating what > we did before with device tree, right? Why can't this information be > there instead? > Yes, similar to existing 'reset_us' field i extended platform data to add 'power_on_delay_us' field. I can move it to device tree but think there could be question on why we need to add a new binding just for this property and not do it compatible based platform data considering this power_on_delay_us delay is fixed for USB5744? Thanks, Radhey
