lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ARM: dts: armada-38x: label USB and SATA nodes
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:21:11 +0200
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 07:39:20PM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 18:50:15 +0200
> > Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> >
> > > > - sata@a8000 {
> > > > + satac0: sata@a8000 {
> > >
> > > Hi Ralph
> > >
> > > Why the c in satac0?
> >
> > For controller and to not conflict with a use case of sata0 for a
> > port, similarly to pciec and pcie1. See
> > armada-385-synology-ds116.dts.
>
> :~/linux/arch/arm/boot/dts$ ls *ds116*
> ls: cannot access '*ds116*': No such file or directory

Ah, not in mainline yet, from linux-next

commit a58d73340b0ec93fc29a826e45fbbfbc3f81b7eb
Author: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun Feb 12 10:30:35 2017 +0100

The arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-388-gp.dts from below was
meant as the example for the conflict I mentioned.

>
> But anyway, a few boards seem to solve this by calling the controller
> node ahci0: and the port sata0:

That's another option I missed.

$ git grep -n ahci.:
arch/arm/boot/dts/spear1310.dtsi:59: ahci0: ahci@b1000000 {
arch/arm/boot/dts/spear1310.dtsi:68: ahci1: ahci@b1800000 {
arch/arm/boot/dts/spear1310.dtsi:77: ahci2: ahci@b4000000 {
arch/arm/boot/dts/spear1340.dtsi:42: ahci0: ahci@b1000000 {

Not a big list which I have here and the nodes themselves are named
ahci@xxxxxxxx.

>
> > > > - usb3@f0000 {
> > > > + usb3_0: usb3@f0000 {
> > > > compatible =
> > > > "marvell,armada-380-xhci"; reg = <0xf0000 0x4000>,<0xf4000
> > > > 0x4000>; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 16
> > > > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; @@ -598,7 +598,7 @@
> > > > status = "disabled";
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > - usb3@f8000 {
> > > > + usb3_1: usb3@f8000 {
> > > > compatible =
> > > > "marvell,armada-380-xhci"; reg = <0xf8000 0x4000>,<0xfc000
> > > > 0x4000>; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 17
> > > > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > >
> > > I can understand what you are saying. But does anybody else care?
> > > Are there other .dtsi files differentiating between USB 1.1, 2
> > > and 3?
> >
> > It's handled differently where ever I looked, some do some don't. A
> > case for distinguishing USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 like this is
> > armada-388-gp.dts.
>
> Humm...
>
> /* CON4 */
> usb@58000 {
> vcc-supply = <&reg_usb2_0_vbus>;
> status = "okay";
> };
>
>
> /* CON5 */
> usb3@f0000 {
> usb-phy = <&usb2_1_phy>;
> status = "okay";
> };
>
> /* CON7 */
> usb3@f8000 {
> usb-phy = <&usb3_phy>;
> status = "okay";
> };
>
> Is this clear? Is CON5 a USB 3 host, but has a USB 2 PHY connected to
> it? CON7 is the only true USB 3 port? I think some comments written in
> schwiizerdütsch would be clearre.:-)

Did you just find a bug? :)

*ufm sprung gxi* (about to head out), sorry for the mix-up. The synology
dts would actually have worked for both usb and sata labels :)

$git grep -hn -A8 usb3_0_phy: arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-385-synology-ds116.dts
191: usb3_0_phy: usb3_0_phy {
192- compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv";
193- vcc-supply = <&reg_usb3_0_vbus>;
194- };
195-
196- usb3_1_phy: usb3_1_phy {
197- compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv";
198- vcc-supply = <&reg_usb3_1_vbus>;
199- };

---
Let's add another argument for and against usb3_x type labels:

$ git grep -hn usb arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi
455: usb0: usb@58000 {
593: usb3_0: usb3@f0000 {
601: usb3_1: usb3@f8000 {
They might actually be considered different types. usb vs. usb3, though
that feels quite arbitrary.

$ git grep -hn usb3_0 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,dwc3.txt
45: usb3_0: usb30@0 {
usb3_0 could be mistaken for the protocol version. A bit of a stretch as well ...

First thought was using usb0,usb1,usb2. For the individual linksys
boards this meant a potential pit-fall, namely using "usb2:" for the
only USB 3.0 port while "usb0:" for the only USB 2.0 port appears in the
armada-385-linksys.dtsi only, hence the quest for alternatives.

In the end it boils down to I couldn't make out a definitive standard and
made a pick that felt about right.

If there was an obvious choice there wouldn't have been a reason to omit
the labels this patch handles when handling the bulk. Make the bulk a none
discussion item and handle the corner cases later. Guess that's what
happened here.

Thanks
Ralph

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-01 10:10    [W:0.045 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site