[PATCH 00/16] Add initial USB support for the Renesas RZ/G3S SoC

[claudiu beznea]

On 02.09.2024 13:47, Biju Das wrote:
> Hi Claudiu,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea at tuxon.dev>
>> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 11:41 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Add initial USB support for the Renesas RZ/G3S SoC
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02.09.2024 12:18, Biju Das wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you have any plan to control this power transitions(ALL_ON to AWO and vice versa) in linux?
>>>>>> As you know, the RZ/G3S USB PM code is already prepared. This is
>>>>>> also configuring these signals when going to suspend/exiting from resume.
>>>>>> W/o configuring properly these signals the USB is not working after a suspend/resume cycle.
>>>>> One option is to handle SYSC USB PWRRDY signal in TF-A, if you plan
>>>>> to handle system transitions
>>>> there??
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned, the settings in these registers may be changed by intermediary booting
>> applications.
>>>> Depending on that, Linux need to control it also on probe for USB to
>>>> work (it should be the same with PCIe, these signals seems similar from HW manual description).
>>> You mean system transition settings will be override by U-boot, so Linux needs to restore it back??
>>
>> It was talking about booting...
> 
> I am also referring to boot. Boot starts with TF-A and it has a system state.
> 
>>
>> You proposed to handle SYSC signals from TF-A in a discussion about system power transitions:
>>
>> "One option is to handle SYSC USB PWRRDY signal in TF-A,  if you plan to handle system transitions"
>>
>> (I was guessing the "system transition" statement there refers to power states transitions, ALL_ON <->
>> AWO/VBAT)
> 
> That is correct.
> 
>>
>> and I gave the booting process as a counter example: if we handle it in TF-A it may not be enough as
>> these signals might be changed by intermediary booting applications (e.g., U-Boot).
> 
> Why should U-boot override, system state signals such as USB PWRREADY? Can you please give an example.

I didn't say *should* but *might* and I was referring to a hypothetical
situation where any used application (bootloader) might trigger this signal
for whatever reason. My point was to let Linux to handle all the settings
that it can do for a particular functionality. The resisters in SYSC
address space controlling these signals are accessible to normal world
compared to others in the SYSC address spaces.

> 
>>
>> To conclude, there are 3 scenarios I see where these signals need to be
>> handled:
>> 1/ booting 
>> 2/ suspend to RAM
>> 3/ driver unbind/bind
> 
> --> It should be OK as linux is not handling USB PWRREADY signal.
> 
>>
>> In case of booting: if we have TF-A to set signals there might be intermediary booting applications
>> (e.g. U-Boot) that set these signals also. If it leaves it in improper state and Linux wants to use
>> USB then the USB will not work (if Linux doesn't handle it).
> 
> That is the problem of U-boot. U-boot should not override system state signals such as USB PWRREADY.

U-Boot can also use USB as well.

> 
>>
>> In case of suspend to RAM: as TF-A is the only application in the suspend to RAM chain, it should work
>> handling it in TF-A.
> 
> That is correct, TF-A should handle based on system state.
> 
>>
>> In case of unbind/bind: currently we don't know if these signals introduces any kind of power saving
>> so asserting/de-asserting them in Linux may be useful from this perspective, if any.
> 
> These are system signals, according to me should not be used in unbind/bind.

It can be done whatever way. I would just prefer to work for all scenarios.

Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea

> 
> I may be wrong.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biju