lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: usb: dwc3: Clean up hs_phy_irq in bindings
From

>>
>> 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,

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-11-24 18:39    [W:0.095 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site