Alexander Shishkin a écrit : > Michael Grzeschik <mgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 03:34:23PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote: >>> Michael Grzeschik <mgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:45:39PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote: >>>>> Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> This patch makes it possible to configure the PTW and PTS bits inside >>>>>> the portsc register for host and device mode before the driver starts >>>>>> and the phy can be addressed as hardware implementation is designed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/usb/chipidea/bits.h | 3 +++ >>>>>> drivers/usb/chipidea/ci.h | 2 ++ >>>>>> drivers/usb/chipidea/ci13xxx_imx.c | 1 + >>>>>> drivers/usb/chipidea/core.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> drivers/usb/chipidea/host.c | 4 +++ >>>>>> include/linux/usb/chipidea.h | 9 +++++++ >>>>>> 6 files changed, 66 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/chipidea/bits.h b/drivers/usb/chipidea/bits.h >>>>>> index 4b6ae3e..3cded5f 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/chipidea/bits.h >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/chipidea/bits.h >>>>>> @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ >>>>>> #define PORTSC_SUSP BIT(7) >>>>>> #define PORTSC_HSP BIT(9) >>>>>> #define PORTSC_PTC (0x0FUL << 16) >>>>>> +#define PORTSC_PTS (BIT(31) | BIT(30)) >>>>>> +#define PORTSC_PTW BIT(28) >>>>>> +#define PORTSC_STS BIT(29) >>>>> Hm, my spec says these are actually in DEVLC register and only have this >>>>> meaning in device mode. And in portsc these bits fall in device address >>>>> bitfield. Can you refer me to your spec? >>>> You can find it here: >>>> http://cache.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/ref_manual/iMX53RM.pdf?fpsp=1 >>>> Page 4947 >>> Oh, but see, the offset is 0x184, which in chipidea spec (the version >>> that I have) corresponds to DEVLC and not PORTSC. So in this driver's >>> terminology it's DEVLC too, at least currently. >>> >>> So have you tested this code and did it make any difference? >> Yes, i have tested this code with MX25, MX28, MX35 and MX53. In every >> SoCs Datasheet the PORTSC register is defined on PORTBASE+0x184. Without >> this proper configuration its not possible to communicate with the PHY. > > No, I mean, you're writing DEVLC (using present driver's terminology) > bits to PORTSC register. It *shouldn't* work. I suppose, it does > something, but not exactly what you intended. > I confirm in our datasheet we have PTW, PTS, STS in this register PORTSCx with this mapping. In later design that support lpm, these bits have to move in another register because ehci 1.1 use them [1]. So this code should only do that when !ci->hw_bank.lpm. In case of ci->hw_bank.lpm, I don't know the new register mapping. Matthieu [1] /* EHCI 1.1 addendum */ #define PORTSC_SUSPEND_STS_ACK 0 #define PORTSC_SUSPEND_STS_NYET 1 #define PORTSC_SUSPEND_STS_STALL 2 #define PORTSC_SUSPEND_STS_ERR 3 #define PORT_DEV_ADDR (0x7f<<25) /* device address */ #define PORT_SSTS (0x3<<23) /* suspend status */ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
