On 3/31/21 9:21 AM, Greg KH wrote:

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:54:40PM +0300, cristian.birsan@microchip.com wrote:

quoted

From: Cristian Birsan <cristian.birsan@microchip.com>

This patch set adds initial driver support for Microchip USB Type-C Port
Controller (TCPC) embedded in sama7g5 SoC.

The controller does not implement power delivery and the driver uses dummy
functions to register the port with TCPM. The current silicon version is
not able to trigger interrupts so the driver will poll for changes on
CC1/CC2 lines.

Support for sink is implemented and tested with an USB device. The plan is
to extend the driver and add source support.

Why are these marked "RFC"?

I sent the patch as RFC because I wanted to gather feedback on it and on how
it fits under Type-C/TCPM subsystem.

Do you really not think they should be accepted?  Why not, what is left
to do with them?

I think the driver can be merged after I address the review received on the
mailing list. At the same time, I plan to enhance it with the following:

- add sink detection at power source and check it with USB Host.

- add a way to notify VBUS presence back to USB gadget.  As TCPC needs to
detect VBUS and report it to TCPM, I moved the VBUS detection gpio from the
USB gadget device tree node to TCPC. For now, the gadget always assumes that
VBUS is on. I saw that some USB PHY drivers use a notifier chain. I can
implement something similar.
  

I do not normally review "RFC" patches as the authors do not think they
should be merged, and we have plenty of patches that are being asked to
be merged already :)

Until now I received a review from Heikki Krogerus. I will let this version
of the patch on the mailing list for some time in case there is additional
feedback.

thanks,

greg k-h

Regards,
Cristian
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel