Hi Yanik, On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 05:28:51PM +0000, Yanik Fuchs wrote: > Good Evening > > Here is a Patch to resolve an issue with TCPM if Vbus was never low. > Please consider that this is one of my first kernel pull requests, I may have missunderstood the process. Welcome aboard :) Thank you for the patch. Unfortunately it is not properly formatted. As this is a patch, you can't really comment it like this here. Instead you should put any additional comments... > Freundliche Grüsse > Best regards > > > Yanik Fuchs > > --- > > >From 604b97b6394b5643394bc63d4ac691c098c99c40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: yfu <yanikfuchs@xxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:23:18 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] usb: typec: tcpm: Prevent Hard_Reset if Vbus was never low > > Before this patch, tcpm went into SOFT_RESET state, if Vbus was never low > resulting in Hard_Reset, if power supply does not support USB_PD Soft_Reset. > > In order to prevent this, I remove the Vbus check completely, so that > we go as well into the SNK_WAIT_CAPABILITIES_TIMEOUT state. There, we send > PD_CTRL_GET_SOURCE_CAP which many power supply do support. > (122968f8dda8 usb: typec: tcpm: avoid resets for missing source capability messages) > > Additionally, I added SOFT_RESET (instead of Hard_Reset) as Fallback solution > if we still not have gotten any capabilities. Hard_Reset is now only done, > if PD_CTRL_GET_SOURCE_CAP and SOFT_RESET fail to get capabilities. > --- ... here after those three lines. The proper format, and the whole development process is documented here: https://docs.kernel.org/process/development-process.html You have also not signed your patch with a Signed-off-by tag. The importance of the signature in patches is explained in the fifth section of the development process documentation, here: https://docs.kernel.org/process/5.Posting.html > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c | 10 ++-------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c > index fc619478200f..c7a59c9f78ee 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c > @@ -5038,14 +5038,8 @@ static void run_state_machine(struct tcpm_port *port) > * were already in a stable contract before this boot. > * Do this only once. > */ > - if (port->vbus_never_low) { > - port->vbus_never_low = false; > - tcpm_set_state(port, SNK_SOFT_RESET, > + tcpm_set_state(port, SNK_WAIT_CAPABILITIES_TIMEOUT, > PD_T_SINK_WAIT_CAP); Here you should fix the alignment of the code so it matches the parentheses. You can use the scripts/checkpatch.pl script, which is part of the kernel source, to detect this kind of issues in your code by supplying your patch to it. > - } else { > - tcpm_set_state(port, SNK_WAIT_CAPABILITIES_TIMEOUT, > - PD_T_SINK_WAIT_CAP); > - } > break; > case SNK_WAIT_CAPABILITIES_TIMEOUT: > /* > @@ -5064,7 +5058,7 @@ static void run_state_machine(struct tcpm_port *port) > * according to the specification. > */ > if (tcpm_pd_send_control(port, PD_CTRL_GET_SOURCE_CAP, TCPC_TX_SOP)) > - tcpm_set_state_cond(port, hard_reset_state(port), 0); > + tcpm_set_state_cond(port, SNK_SOFT_RESET, 0); > else > tcpm_set_state(port, hard_reset_state(port), PD_T_SINK_WAIT_CAP); > break; > -- > 2.34.1 Otherwise the code looks very good to me, but I can't yet say if the change is appropriate. Let's fix the patch format first. Br, -- heikki
