Re: [PATCH 2/3] Documentation: bindings: add usb3-host-disable and usb3-host-port for Rockchip USB Type-C PHY

Hi,

2018-02-13 10:18 GMT+01:00 Emil Renner Berthing
[off-list ref]:

On 12 February 2018 at 23:29, Rob Herring [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Brian Norris [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:43:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Enric Balletbo Serra
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

2018-02-08 18:52 GMT+01:00 Rob Herring [off-list ref]:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Enric Balletbo i Serra
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-rockchip-typec.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-rockchip-typec.txt

@@ -36,6 +36,12 @@ offset, enable bit, write mask bit.
  - rockchip,uphy-dp-sel : the register of type-c phy enable DP function
    for type-c phy0, it must be <0x6268 19 19>;
    for type-c phy1, it must be <0x6268 3 19>;
+ - rockchip,usb3-host-disable : the register of type-c phy disable usb3 host
+   for type-c phy0, it must be <0x2434 0 16>;
+   for type-c phy1, it must be <0x2444 0 16>;
+ - rockchip,usb3-host-port : the register of type-c phy usb3 port number
+   for type-c phy0, it must be <0x2434 12 28>;
+   for type-c phy1, it must be <0x2444 12 28>;

When does this list stop? Adding properties for various register
fields doesn't scale. This information should be in the driver and
based on the compatible string if necessary.

I see, seams reasonable to me, is this applicable to the new ones only
or I should get rid of all the proprieties like this from the DT
(including the old ones)?

We're already kind of stuck with the existing ones. So it depends if
people want to phase them out or not.

FWIW, any Chrome{device} using these sort of bindings is perfectly
capable of handling changed bindings (we ship DTBs with the kernel). But
that's not typically how mainline covers binding deprecation.

If it's CrOS only that's using these, then it's really up to you all.
I guess it depends if many folks are trying to run mainline on CrOS
devices and don't necessarily keep things in sync.

For what it's worth I run mainline on my Chromebook Plus (rk3399-gru-kevin),
but in order to have a somewhat working setup you need to run
4.16-rc1 + various patches from the rockchip mailing list which means
you have to keep up with the latest mainline (both kernel and devicetree)
anyway. So I'm all in favour of cleaning up the devicetree.

quoted

quoted

If we're going to start recommending not putting these offsets in the
DT, I'd vote for deprecating them, for consistency. (Otherwise, we'll
keep running into this same question.) We only documented the RK3399
("rockchip,rk3399-typec-phy") binding, so all users should have the same
offsets. I dunno if/how we pick a time for eventually removing the
bindings entirely.

Yes, makes sense.

One question, maybe silly question, that comes to my mind is, as the
offsets for same register are different between type-c phy0 and type-c
phy1 and there is two instances, the driver needs to know which type-c
phyter is and I'm not sure the proper way to do it. It is just check
the type-c phyter base address? So if base address is 0xff7c0000
(phy0) we know that we should apply the offsets for phy0 and if base
address is 0xff800000 we know that we should apply the offsets for
phy1?

Best regards,
 Enric

quoted

Rob

_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html