lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 07/13] usb: otg: add OTG core
From
Date
On 09/09/15 11:13, Peter Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:08:10PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>> On 09/09/15 05:21, Peter Chen wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:25:25PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/09/15 11:31, Peter Chen wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 01:23:01PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/09/15 04:23, Peter Chen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 04:21:18PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>>>>>> + * This is used by the USB Host stack to register the Host controller
>>>>>>>> + * to the OTG core. Host controller must not be started by the
>>>>>>>> + * caller as it is left upto the OTG state machine to do so.
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * Returns: 0 on success, error value otherwise.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +int usb_otg_register_hcd(struct usb_hcd *hcd, unsigned int irqnum,
>>>>>>>> + unsigned long irqflags, struct otg_hcd_ops *ops)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> + struct usb_otg *otgd;
>>>>>>>> + struct device *hcd_dev = hcd->self.controller;
>>>>>>>> + struct device *otg_dev = usb_otg_get_device(hcd_dev);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One big problem here is: there are two designs for current (IP) driver
>>>>>>> code, one creates dedicated hcd device as roothub's parent, like dwc3.
>>>>>>> Another one doesn't do this, roothub's parent is core device (or otg device
>>>>>>> in your patch), like chipidea and dwc2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then, otg_dev will be glue layer device for chipidea after that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. Let's add a way for the otg controller driver to provide the host and gadget
>>>>>> information to the otg core for such devices like chipidea and dwc2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger, not only chipidea and dwc2, I think the musb uses the same
>>>>> hierarchy. If the host, device, and otg share the same register
>>>>> region, host part can't be a platform driver since we don't want
>>>>> to remap the same register region again.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, in the design, we may need to consider both situations, one
>>>>> is otg/host/device has its own register region, and host is a
>>>>> separate platform device (A), the other is three parts share the
>>>>> same register region, there is only one platform driver (B).
>>>>>
>>>>> A:
>>>>>
>>>>> IP core device
>>>>> |
>>>>> |
>>>>> |-----|-----|
>>>>> gadget host platform device
>>>>> |
>>>>> roothub
>>>>>
>>>>> B:
>>>>>
>>>>> IP core device
>>>>> |
>>>>> |
>>>>> |-----|-----|
>>>>> gadget roothub
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This API must be called before the hcd/gadget-driver is added so that the otg
>>>>>> core knows it's linked to an OTG controller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any better idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A flag stands for this hcd controller is the same with otg controller
>>>>> can be used, this flag can be stored at struct usb_otg_config.
>>>>
>>>> What if there is another architecture like so?
>>>>
>>>> C:
>>>> [Parent]
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> |------------------|--------------|
>>>> [OTG core] [gadget] [host]
>>>>
>>>> We need a more flexible mechanism to link the gadget and
>>>> host device to the otg core for non DT case.
>>>>
>>>> How about adding struct usb_otg parameter to usb_otg_register_hcd()?
>>>>
>>>> e.g.
>>>> int usb_otg_register_hcd(struct usb_otg *otg, struct usb_hcd *hcd, ..)
>>>>
>>>> If otg is NULL it will try DT otg-controller property or parent to
>>>> get the otg controller.
>>>
>>> How usb_otg_register_hcd get struct usb_otg, from where?
>>
>> This only works when the parent driver creating the hcd has registered the
>> otg controller too.
>>
>
> Sorry? So we need to find another way to solve this issue, right?

For existing cases this is sufficient.
The otg device is either the one supplied during usb_otg_register_hcd
(cases B and C) or it is the parent device (case A).

It does not work when the 3 devices are totally independent and get registered
at different times.
I don't think there is such a case for non-DT yet, but let's not have this
limitation. So yes, we need to look for better solution :).

--
cheers,
-roger


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-09 11:41    [W:0.738 / U:1.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site