Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Nov 2023 23:09:04 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: usb: dwc3: Clean up hs_phy_irq in bindings | From | Krishna Kurapati PSSNV <> |
| |
>> >> Yes. From whatever targets I was able to find, only one of them didn't >> have the power_event irq. Rest all of them had. I will recheck that >> particular one again. > > Please do. The driver polls the corresponding status register on all > platforms currently, and perhaps this interrupt can one day be used to > get rid of the polling. >
Ok, I just rechecked and case is, I am not able to get my hands on the doc. I can't say for sure that the target is missing the pwr_event interrupt. I say we can safely add the target assuming pwr_event is present for ipq9574. Every target so far even on downstream has this IRQ present in hw.
>>> Note that DP comes before DM above as that seems like the natural order >>> of these (plus before minus). >>> >>> Now if the HS interrupt is truly unusable, I guess we can consider >>> dropping it throughout and the above becomes just three permutations >>> instead, which can even be expressed along the lines of: >> >> Infact, I wanted to do this but since you mentioned before that if HW >> has it, we must describe it, I kept it in. But since this functionality >> is confirmed to be mutually exclusive of qusb2/{dp/dm}, I am aligned to >> skip it in bindings and drop it in DT. > > As I mentioned elsewhere, it depends on whether it can be used at all. > Not simply whether there is some other mechanism that can be used in its > stead. Such a decision should be left up to the implementation. > > That's why I said "truly unusable" above. It's still not clear to me > whether that is the case or not. >
I looked at the code of 4.4, 4.14/ 4.19/ 5.4/ 5.10/ 5.15/ 6.1 and none of them implement the hs_phy_irq.
>>> - anyOf: >>> - items: >>> - const: qusb2_phy >>> - items: >>> - const: dp_hs_phy_irq >>> - const: dm_hs_phy_irq >>> - const: pwr_event >>> - const: ss_phy_irq (optional) >>> >> >> This must cover all cases AFAIK. How about we keep pwr_event also >> optional for time being. The ones I am not able to find also would come >> up under still binding block. > > No, we should avoid that if we can as with two many optional things, > these quickly gets messy (one optional interrupt at the end is fine and > can be expressed using min/maxItems). > > If the "qusb2+" combination above isn't needed, then we're down to four > permutations, which is few enough to be spelled out explicitly even if > we decide that the hs_phy_irq should be kept in. Without hs_phy_irq, it > seems there's really only two permutations. >
My opinion would be to keep the power_event irq as mandatory and not to include the hs_phy_irq.
Regards, Krishna,
| |