[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] phy-sun4i-usb: Add full support for usb0 phy / OTG

Chanwoo Choi cw00.choi at samsung.com
Thu Jun 11 03:30:38 PDT 2015


On 06/11/2015 06:38 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> On 11-06-15 11:33, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On 06/11/2015 05:59 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 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.
>>>>>> Firstly,
>>>>>> 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.

OK. As you said, this issue shold be prevented on framework.
I'm considering what is appropriate method to resolve this issue.

Chanwoo Choi

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list