Message-ID: <1318505283.23199.4.camel@sokoban>
Date:	Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:28:03 +0300
From:	Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>
To:	"Munegowda, Keshava" <keshava_mgowda@...com>
CC:	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	"Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@...com>,
	"Basak, Partha" <p-basak2@...com>, "Balbi, Felipe" <balbi@...com>,
	<parthab@...ia.ti.com>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Gadiyar, Anand" <gadiyar@...com>, <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	<tony@...mide.com>, "Hilman, Kevin" <khilman@...com>,
	<johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	"Sripathy, Vishwanath" <vishwanath.bs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5 v11] arm: omap: usb: ehci and ohci hwmod structures for omap3

On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 09:12 +0200, Munegowda, Keshava wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Munegowda, Keshava
> <keshava_mgowda@...com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 08:04 +0200, Basak, Partha wrote:
> >>> >
> >> Texas Instruments Oy, Tekniikantie 12, 02150 Espoo. Y-tunnus: 0115040-6. Kotipaikka: Helsinki
> >>
> >> 
Texas Instruments Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki, Finland. Business ID: 0115040-6. Domicile: Helsinki
 
-----Original Message-----

> >>
> >>> >From: Munegowda, Keshava [mailto:keshava_mgowda@...com]
> >>> >Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 7:49 PM
> >>> >To: Paul Walmsley; Tero Kristo; b-cousson@...com; balbi@...com;
> >>> >parthab@...ia.ti.com
> >>> >Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org; linux-omap@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> >>> >kernel@...r.kernel.org; gadiyar@...com; sameo@...ux.intel.com;
> >>> >tony@...mide.com; khilman@...com; johnstul@...ibm.com;
> >>> >vishwanath.bs@...com
> >>> >Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5 v11] arm: omap: usb: ehci and ohci hwmod
> >>> >structures for omap3
> >>> >
> >>> >On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com> wrote:
> >>> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Munegowda, Keshava wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
> >>> >wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> But the question arises here , why do we need these ehci and ohci as
> >>> >two
> >>> >>> different hwmods containing only irq and base address? It is required
> >>> >>> for future - to implement remote wakeup feature for ehci and ohci
> >>> >ports
> >>> >>> depending on irq-chain handler patches by Tero. Separate hwmods for
> >>> >ehci
> >>> >>> and ohci are needed to enable prcm chain-handler to uniquely identify
> >>> >>> the wakeup source as ehci or ohci and call only the corresponding
> >>> >>> interrupt handler. We will be using omap_hwmod_mux_init for ehci and
> >>> >>> ohci hwmods to enable I/O wakeup capability for respective IO-pads.
> >>> >>> Depending on the particular wakeup source(ehci/ohci), the
> >>> >corresponding
> >>> >>> ehci or ohci irq handler will be called.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> If ehci and ohci are combined with usbhs hwmod as a single hwmod ,
> >>> >then
> >>> >>> for every wakeup (either ehci or ohci port wakeup) only the first
> >>> >>> interrupt handler will be called (please look at the function
> >>> >>> omap_hwmod_mux_handle_irq of
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> /arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c file ; in tero's latest patch:
> >>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@vger.kernel.org/msg53139.html)
> >>> >>> , so in this
> >>> >>> case, if ehci interrupt is the first interrupt , then even for ohci
> >>> >wakeup
> >>> >>> , only ehci interrupt will get called; which will break the
> >>> >functionality.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Any reason why this couldn't be handled either by:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 1. adding an IRQ number field to struct omap_hwmod_mux_info, and
> >>> >changing
> >>> >> _omap_hwmod_mux_handle_irq() to raise that IRQ number?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >yes, it is possible by changing the existing irq-chain handler by tero
> >>> >Kristo
> >>> >
> >>> >I am looping tero too.
> >>> >
> >>> >So here are new requirements for the irq-chain handler
> >>> >
> >>> >1. The hwmod should have have option to have multiple mux structures
> >>> >
> >>> >This is something like:
> >>> >
> >>> >The existing mux structure definition in omap_hwmod [file:
> >>> >/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/omap_hwmod.h ] structure
> >>> >
> >>> >     struct omap_hwmod_mux_info      *mux;
> >>> >
> >>> >it should changed to
> >>> >
> >>> >     struct omap_hwmod_mux_info      **pmux;
> >>> >         U32                                            mux_cnt;
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >pmux - pointers to mux ; array of mux structures.
> >>> >mux_cnt - number of mux per hwmod.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >2. The mux  omap_hwmod_mux_info  structure should have new member
> >>> >called irq, like as follows:
> >>> >
> >>> >struct omap_hwmod_mux_info {
> >>> >     int                             nr_pads;
> >>> >     ...
> >>> >        ....
> >>> >        u32                           irq;
> >>> >
> >>> >};
> >>> >
> >>> >Upon wakeup of the I/O pad of the mux , the irq-chain handler should
> >>> >invoke the irq handler of the irq numbered <map_hwmod_mux_info.irq>
> >>> >
> >>> >3.  There should be "SOME WAY" to supply the irqs  from hwmod
> >>> >structure (omap_hwmod) to mux structure (omap_hwmod_mux_info)
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >if you , tero and other opensource people are aligned on the proposed
> >>> >changes on the irq-handler ;
> >>> >then it is possible to have two hwmods ( usbhs and tll) for usbhost
> >>> >driver.
> >>> >please let me know you comments on the above approach.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Hello Tero,
> >>>
> >>> I would like to draw your attention to the following thread:
> >>>
> >>> We need to support the following:
> >>> 1. Ability to associate multiple mux info to a hwmod.
> >>> 2. Able to associate a particular irq handler to a mux info.
> >>> 3. PRCM Chain handler should loop through all mux-info arrays
> >>>    for a particular hwmod to identify the possible wakeup source(s)
> >>>    and call the appropriate irq handler for that mux-info.
> >>>    (It is possible that both mux-info are woken up in which case both
> >>> handlers should be called).
> >>>
> >>> To give you a little more perspective, EHCI & OHCI are co-controllers
> >>> under UHH/TLL.
> >>> They do not get presented separately to the OCP bus, hence do not qualify
> >>> as separate hwmods
> >>> (Paul had objected to the design approach representing EHCI & OHCI as
> >>> different hwmods).
> >>>
> >>> However, we need a mechanism to efficiently identify/distinguish
> >>> remote-wakeup, connect/disconnect
> >>> On to an EHCI port vs an OHCI port & call only the correct interrupt
> >>> handler(EHCI or OHCI).
> >>>
> >>>  To incorporate this, chain handler implementation would need some
> >>> enhancements.
> >>>  We can look into the details in the next merge window cycle in
> >>> conjunction with aggressive clock management support for EHCI/OHCI.
> >>>  But fundamentally, if you are aligned to the approach, we can go ahead
> >>> collapsing the EHCI & OHCI hwmods into one.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> So, you would need a mechanism to do something like this:
> >>
> >> pad a or b wakeup detected -> irq0
> >> pad c or d wakeup detected -> irq1?
> >
> > yes, if get something like this , its perfect.
> 
> Hi Tero
>            Are you posting the patches with these changes?
> please let me know when you will be able to post the patches.
> so that I start the design of usb host remote wakeup using your changes.
> 
> regards
> keshava
> 

Sorry for the delay, but I am still not quite sure how this should be
handled for upstream. Attached is a proposal hack patch that should
work, you can at least try it out to see what happens. It applies on top
of my latest PRCM chain handler set (version 9.) Patch desc contains a
guide how to use it.

-Tero


> 
> 
> 
> >
> >>
> >> Is it okay to do this:
> >>
> >> pad a...d wakeup -> irq0 and irq1?
> >
> > No, we dont need multiple irq handlers for single wakeup source.
> >
> >>
> >> I am okay doing something like this, we just need to agree how this
> >> would be represented from the hwmod point of view. Currently the chain
> >> handler set does not change hwmod structures at all to provide what it
> >> does.
> >
> > paul and benoit are the people to design the mechanisam for this.
> >
> > paul/Benoit
> >            please give you thoughts on this.
> >
> > regards
> > keshava
> >
> >
> >>
> >> -Tero
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> or
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 2. using shared interrupts?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> - Paul
> >>> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >


View attachment "0001-HACK-omap-mux-add-support-for-separate-wakeup-irq-fo.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (3850 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists