[PATCH 08/12] doc: binding: pwrseq-usb-generic: add binding doc for generic usb power sequence driver

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:26:51PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:16:48PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Peter Chen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Add binding doc for generic usb power sequence driver, and update
generic usb device binding-doc accordingly.

Signed-off-by: Peter Chen <redacted>
---
 .../bindings/power/pwrseq/pwrseq-usb-generic.txt   | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 .../devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-device.txt         |  2 ++
 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/pwrseq/pwrseq-usb-generic.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/pwrseq/pwrseq-usb-generic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/pwrseq/pwrseq-usb-generic.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8ad98382
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/pwrseq/pwrseq-usb-generic.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+The power sequence for generic USB Devices
+
+Some hard-wired USB devices need to do power sequence to let the
+device work normally, the typical power sequence like: enable USB
+PHY clock, toggle reset pin, etc. But current Linux USB driver
+lacks of such code to do it, it may cause some hard-wired USB devices
+works abnormal or can't be recognized by controller at all. The
+power sequence will be done before this device can be found at USB
+bus.
+
+Required properties:
+- compatible : contains "usb-pwrseq-generic".

In case I have not been clear, no.

I am not going to accept anything along the lines of the current mmc
pwrseq. I am basically okay with Krzysztof's proposal as it is *only*
an added property and not a duplication of information. I'd suggest
you figure out how to make the kernel work with that rather than
trying to work-around whatever kernel limitations there are.

I see.

Would you agree with below:

In general, yes. There are some points being discussed in the other 
thread.

&usbotg1 {
	vbus-supply = <&reg_usb_otg1_vbus>;
	pinctrl-names = "default";
	pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_usb_otg1_id>;
	status = "okay";

	#address-cells = <1>;
	#size-cells = <0>;
	hub: genesys at 1 {
		compatible = "usb5e3,608";
		reg = <1>;

		power-sequence;
		reset-gpios = <&gpio4 5 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; /* hub reset pin */
		reset-duration-us = <10>;

I wonder if this really needs to be specified. A sufficiently long 
default should be good enough for 90 something % of devices.

		clocks = <&clks IMX6SX_CLK_CKO>;

		#address-cells = <1>;
		#size-cells = <0>;
		ethernet: asix at 1 {
			compatible = "usbb95,1708";
			reg = <1>;

			power-sequence;
			reset-gpios = <&gpio4 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; /* ethernet_rst */
			reset-duration-us = <15>;
			clocks = <&clks IMX6SX_CLK_IPG>;
		};
	};
};

If the node has property "power-sequence", the pwrseq core will create
related platform device, and the driver under pwrseq driver will handle
power sequence stuffs. 

This I have issue with. If you are creating a platform device here, you 
are trying to work-around limitations in the linux driver model. Either 
we need some sort of pre-probe hook to the drivers to call or each 
parent node driver is responsible for checking and calling pwr-seq 
functions for child nodes. e.g. The host controller calls pwr-seq for 
the hub, the hub driver calls the power seq for the asix chip. Soon as 
we have a case too complex for the generic pwr-seq, we're going to need 
the pre-probe hook as I don't want to see a continual expansion of 
generic pwr-seq binding for ever more complex cases.

The property below "power-sequence" will be
handled at pwrseq driver.

You cannot rely on order other than for logical readability. There are 
no guarantees of either the dtb or kernel ordering of properties.

Rob