[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] phy-sun4i-usb: Add full support for usb0 phy / OTG
Hans de Goede
hdegoede at redhat.com
Thu Jun 11 02:38:53 PDT 2015
On 11-06-15 11:33, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 05:59 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 11-06-15 10:29, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>> Hi Hans,
>>> On 06/11/2015 05:21 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Hi Chanwoo,
>>>> Thanks for the quick review.
>>>> On 11-06-15 10:07, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>> I add the comment about extcon-related code.
>>>>> I'd like you to implment the extcon driver for phy-sun4i-usb device
>>>>> in drivers/extcon/ directoryby using MFD
>>>> No, just no, this is not what the MFD framework is for, the usb-phy
>>>> in question here is not a multifunction device. The MFD framework
>>>> is intended for true multi-function devices like i2c attached
>>>> PMICs which have regulators, gpios, pwm, input (power button),
>>>> chargers, power-supply, etc. That is NOT the case here.
>>>> Also moving this to the MFD framework would very likely requiring
>>>> the devicetree binding for the usb-phy to change which we cannot
>>>> do as that would break the devicetree ABI.
>>>>> because there are both extcon
>>>>> provider driver and extcon client driver. I think that all extcon
>>>>> provider driver better to be included in drivers/extcon/ directory.
>>>>> extcon_set_cable_state() function should be handled in extcon provider
>>>>> driver which is incluced in drivers/extcon/ directory.
>>>> I do not find this a compelling reason, there are plenty of subsystems
>>>> where not all implementations of the subsystem class live in the subsystem
>>>> directory, e.g. input and hwmon devices are often also found outside of
>>>> the input and hwmon driver directories.
>>> There are difference on between input/hwmon and extcon.
>>> Because input and hwmon driver implement the only one type driver as provider driver.
>>> But, extcon implement the two type driver of both extcon provider and extcon client driver.
>>> The extcon is similiar with regulator and clock framework as resource.
>>> extcon provider driver to provider the event when the state of external connector is changed.
>>> - devm_extcon_dev_register()
>>> - e.g., almost extcon provider driver are included in 'drivers/extcon/' directory.
>> I understand, but that does not change my first argument, that the usb-phy is not
>> a MFD device. And although it may be desirable to keep extcon provider drivers
>> in the drivers/extcon, there are no technical reasons to do so.
>> The whole reason why Kishon asked me to start using the extcon framework is to avoid
>> adding a private API to the phy-sun4i-usb code for notifying the musb-sunxi code
>> about otg-id-pin status changes. Adding a separate driver for just the extcon bits
>> means re-adding a private api to the phy-sun4i-usb code but this time for the
>> extcon code, at which point we might just as well skip extcon and have the
>> musb-sunxi glue code call directly into the phy-sun4i-usb code...
>> Needing a private API for a separate extcn driver actually is a good argument to
>> NOT have a separate extcon driver and keep the extcon code in the phy-sun4i-usb code,
>> where as I see no technical arguments in favor of a separate extcon driver.
> There is one technical issue.
> The extcon_set_cable_state() should be handled by extcon provider driver.
That is something which can be done regardless of where the extcon provider
driver code is located in the kernel tree...
> because extcon_set_cable_state() inform the extcon client driver of the event
> when detecting the change of h/w line (gpio line) or register of peripheral device.
> But, extcon client driver can now get the instance of extcon_dev structure
> by extcon_get_edev_by_phandle() and then can change the cable state by using the extcon_set_cable_state().
> I think that these issue have to be protected by framework level.
Protecting this at the framework level would mean protecting it with code
in drivers/extcon/extcon.c, that code will be used (and thus can protect
things) regardless of where the extcon provider code lives.
I really still see no technical reasons why all extcon provider code
MUST be under drivers/extcon.
As for the whole provider <-> client relation as argument, the same goes
for irq-chips and any code with irq handlers, yet we have irc-chip drivers
(irq providers) all over the place.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel