[PATCH v3] ARM: zynq: DT: Add USB to device tree
flat view
From: Sören Brinkmann <hidden>
Date: 2015-01-27 01:20:56
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-gpio, lkml
On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 02:14AM +0100, Andreas F?rber wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ linux-gpio, linux-usb, Felipe Balbi Am 26.01.2015 um 19:44 schrieb S?ren Brinkmann:quoted
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 08:23AM -0800, S?ren Brinkmann wrote:quoted
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 05:21PM +0100, Andreas F?rber wrote:quoted
Am 26.01.2015 um 16:50 schrieb S?ren Brinkmann:quoted
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 10:35AM +0100, Andreas F?rber wrote:quoted
Am 26.01.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Andreas F?rber:quoted
Am 26.01.2015 um 09:23 schrieb Michal Simek:quoted
On 01/26/2015 09:19 AM, Andreas F?rber wrote:quoted
And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly: [ +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT [ +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: f090e100 op: f090e140 [ +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral [ +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT [ +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: f0910100 op: f0910140 [ +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral Am I missing any other patches or config options?[...]quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
Why is it deferred? Is it because of pinmuxing stuff?No, happened without as well. Looking at a different place in dmesg, I spot this: [ +0,003988] usb_phy_generic phy0: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: using device tree for GPIO lookup [ +0,000015] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' property of node '/phy0[0]' [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' property of node '/phy0[0]' [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy0: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup [ +0,000153] usb_phy_generic phy0: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: Error requesting RESET GPIO [ +0,004360] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy0 failed with error -2 [ +0,004991] usb_phy_generic phy1: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: using device tree for GPIO lookup [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' property of node '/phy1[0]' [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' property of node '/phy1[0]' [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy1: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed [ +0,000011] usb_phy_generic phy1: Error requesting RESET GPIO [ +0,004337] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy1 failed with error -2 So, I guess the chipidea driver is deferring because the phys want a property that neither me nor you are specifying? [...][...]quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
In my manuals and notes I can't find any GPIO being used as reset for the USB PHYs. Any thoughts appreciated.Such a connection is optional. The platform might rely on its reset circuit, though it might not work for warm reboots. I haven't looked at parallela docs, but if there is a schematic available, that should tell you if/what is connected to the PHY reset pin.I do have the schematic, and the way I read it, only the on-board reset button resets the PHYs. Yet it looks as if usb-nop-xceiv insists on a reset-gpios above, no? Does it work on your boards with linux-next?I haven't re-tested it since I submitted the patches, but at that time it worked. But I also didn't test USB with the pinctrl patches together. I'll do some testing later today.So, just did a test. I took all the pinctrl stuff and this patch and ran it on a zc702. I plugged in a thumb drive and that worked just fine. So, basically this patch could go in, despite missing pinctrl properties.For my board I needed the following workaround:diff --git a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c index dd05254241fb..96c7c36e22a6 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c +++ b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c@@ -218,13 +218,13 @@ int usb_phy_gen_create_phy(struct device *dev,struct usb_phy_generic *nop, clk_rate = 0; needs_vcc = of_property_read_bool(node, "vcc-supply"); - nop->gpiod_reset = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "reset-gpios"); + /*nop->gpiod_reset = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "reset-gpios"); err = PTR_ERR(nop->gpiod_reset); if (!err) { nop->gpiod_vbus = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "vbus-detect-gpio"); err = PTR_ERR(nop->gpiod_vbus); - } + }*/ } else if (pdata) { type = pdata->type; clk_rate = pdata->clk_rate; [ +0,004738] usb_phy_generic phy0: Looking up vcc-supply from device tree [ +0,000018] usb_phy_generic phy0: Looking up vcc-supply property in node /phy0 failed [ +0,000011] phy0 supply vcc not found, using dummy regulator [ +0,004844] usb_phy_generic phy1: Looking up vcc-supply from device tree [ +0,000017] usb_phy_generic phy1: Looking up vcc-supply property in node /phy1 failed [ +0,000008] phy1 supply vcc not found, using dummy regulator Basically, usb-nop-xceiv fails to probe when reset-gpios property is absent (and probably also when vbus-detect-gpio property is absent). So I don't understand why it would work for your boards without such properties on today's linux-next... sounds like you tested a different tree?
I tested on the 3.19 tip, not on next. I see the problems you see on next though. Haven't really dug deeper yet.
Take a look at __gpiod_get_index() called from devm_gpiod_get(): http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c#L1648 !desc || desc == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT) results in the above "using lookup tables for GPIO lookup", then IS_ERR(desc) in "lookup for GPIO %s failed". My interpretation is that this gpiolib code is probably okay but that the generic usb phy code fails to check for specific error codes such as absent property (as opposed to deferred resolution of a phandle, where we do want to return -EDEFER early).
Sounds like you're already close. S?ren