Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:45:45 +0000 (GMT)
From:	MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
To:	"Tc, Jenny" <jenny.tc@...el.com>,
	ÃÖÂù¿ì <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
Cc:	anish singh <anish198519851985@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"myunjoo.ham@...il.com" <myunjoo.ham@...il.com>,
	"lockwood@...roid.com" <lockwood@...roid.com>,
	"peterhuewe@....de" <peterhuewe@....de>,
	"broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com" 
	<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"lars@...afoo.de" <lars@...afoo.de>,
	"jic23@...nel.org" <jic23@...nel.org>,
	"Anton Vorontsov (cbouatmailru@...il.com)" <cbouatmailru@...il.com>,
	"Anton Vorontsov (anton.vorontsov@...aro.org)" 
	<anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>,
	"Pallala, Ramakrishna" <ramakrishna.pallala@...el.com>
Subject: Re: RE: [PATCH] extcon : callback function to read cable property

> > >>>>>> I think that the role of extcon subsystem notify changed
> > >>>>>> state(attached/detached) of cable to notifiee, but if you want to
> > >>>>>> add property feature of cable, you should solve ambiguous issues.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> First,
> > >>>>>> This patch only support the properties of charger cable but,
> > >>>>>> never support property of other cable. The following structure
> > >>>>>> depend on only charger cable. We can check it the following
> > structure:
> > >>>>>>   struct extcon_chrg_cbl_props {
> > >>>>>>           enum extcon_chrgr_cbl_stat cable_state;
> > >>>>>>           unsigned long mA;
> > >>>>>>   };
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I think that the patch have to support all of cables for property
> > >> feature.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> My suggestion is to have a structure like this
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> struct  extcon_cablel_props {
> > >>>>>     unsigned int cable_state;
> > >>>>>             unsigned int data;
> > >>>> Why can't it be float/long/double??
> > >>>>> }
> > >>>>> Not all cables will have more than two states. If any cable has
> > >>>>> more than two states, the above structure makes it flexible to
> > >>>>> represent additional state and the data associated
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Second,
> > >>>>>> Certainly, you should define common properties of all cables and
> > >>>>>> specific properties of each cable. The properties of charger
> > >>>>>> cable should never be defined only.
> > >>>> IMHO the extcon doesn't know anything about the cable except the
> > >>>> state which is currently it is in and which also is set by the
> > >>>> provider.I am unable to understand why should extcon provide more
> > >>>> than what it knows?It should just limit itself to broadcasting the
> > >>>> cable state and exploiting it for any other information would only
> > >>>> lead to
> > >> more un-necessary code.
> > >>>> It should be same as IIO subsystem where the consumer and provider
> > >>>> knows before hand what information they are going to share and with
> > >>>> what precision and IIO core is just a way to do that.It doesn't
> > >>>> know anything beyond what is given by the provider.
> > >>>> Same is the case with driver core where individual driver sets it's
> > >>>> own private data and the driver core just gives that private data
> > >>>> back to the driver as and when it needs but parsing the private
> > >>>> data in the right way is up to the individual driver.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I fail to understand why is not the case here.
> > >>>
> > >>> The requirement is different from the IIO case. I am trying to
> > >>> extend the Power Supply class to support charging in a generic way
> > >> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/18/219).
> > >>> The extcon consumer in this case is not a device driver. It's part
> > >>> of power
> > >> supply class driver itself.
> > >>> I am open to any solution to get the cable properties dynamically.
> > >>> Do you find a better but generic mechanism for this?
> > >>>
> > >>> I am trying to extend  extcon just because I couldn¡¯t find any other
> > >>> subsystem which gives cable notifications. IMHO, it's good if we can
> > >>> avoid consumer and provider driver level dependencies just by
> > >>> extending extcon. This will ensure that the same driver will work on
> > >>> any
> > >> platform as long as it's having the dependency only on extcon.
> > >>> We shouldn't put any driver level dependency between extcon
> > consumer
> > >> and provider.
> > >>> When we do like that, the extcon consumer is expecting the similar
> > >>> implementation for the provider on all platforms. This may not be
> > >>> possible
> > >> Is there anything wrong in assuming similar implementation for all
> > >> the providers?I think the providers know what it can provide and this
> > >> may vary quite a lot.Or can we make a generic provider driver which
> > >> will encompass all the randomness in the various provider
> > >> drivers?This generic driver will get all the properties and since it
> > >> will be generice anyone can use it to know what properties to expect.This
> > will keep the extcon design intact.
> > >
> > > Maintainer??
> > 
> > I agreed about opinion of anish singh. The extcon provider driver provide
> > generic
> > 
> > ----
> > struct  extcon_cablel_props {
> >      unsigned int cable_state;
> >      unsigned int data;
> > }
> > ----
> > You suggested upper structure and said it is only flexible to represent
> > additional state, But, it is non-standard. What store real data on "unsigned int
> > data"? It isn't determined and flexible. That is extcon consumer driver should
> > already know type of real data or value of real data. The extcon consumer
> > driver has strong dependency on extcon provider driver. In this case, if
> > extcon provider driver can change data value of "unsigned int data", extcon
> > consumer provider have to be modified according to extcon provider driver.
> > I think it isn't correct apporach. So, I proposed that we should define
> > properties for all cables.
> 
> I couldn¡¯t find properties common for all type of cables. Alternate method I can think of is
> a new driver "extcon-charger.c".  This driver will register with extcon subsystem.
> 
> The consumer and provider can use the APIs and properties exposed by this driver.  This
> way we can ensure that extcon design is intact and the additional charger cable state and
> properties can be handled by this driver. Does that make sense?

Adding another API at a device driver is something to be avoided unless it's
inevitable.

The state/status information required by a charger should be embedded in the
data structure of the charger (e.g., regulator, power-supply-class, or
charger-manager). However, we may consider bridging them via extcon anyway.

We may have:
	enum extcon_cable_type {
		EXTCON_CT_REGULATOR,
		EXTCON_CT_PSY,
		EXTCON_CT_CHARGER_CB,
		...
	};
and have the following included at struct extcon_cable:
	union {
		struct regulator *reg;
		struct power_supply *psy;
		struct charger_cable *charger_cb;
		...
	} cable data;
	enum extcon_cable_type cable_type;

Is there any problems with this approach?


If you need to embeded "current-limit" information, the regulator should be
able to provide it (current-limit regulator).
If you need to embed "suspend/resume" status information in general for a
specific cable type, you need to define corresponding data structure related
to the cable type (class) and make it connected via extcon.


> 
> > 
> > >>
> > >>> and does not seems to  be a scalable solution. IMHO, the extcon
> > >>> should provide a mechanism to retrieve the cable properties.
> > >>> Consumer drivers can use this API to get the cable properties
> > >>> without knowing the provider driver implementation. This will  make
> > >>> the extcon drivers more
> > >> scalable and reusable across multiple platforms.
> > >>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hope above structure would be enough to represent the common
> > cable
> > >>>>> state and it's data. If a cable has more than two states, then
> > >>>>> extcon_update_state can be used to notify the consumer 1)Provider
> > >>>>> can just toggle the "state" argument to notify the consumer that
> > >>>>> cable state is changed OR
> > >>>>> 2) Add one more argument  like  extcon_update_state(struct
> > >>>>> extcon_dev *edev, u32 mask, u32 state1, u32 sate2)
> > >>>> This will cause other drivers to change such as arizona.
> > >>>>> If the state2 is set, then consumers can use
> > >>>>> get_cable_properties() to query the cable properties. State2 need
> > >>>>> to be used only if the cable need to represent more than two state
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Third,
> > >>>>>> If we finish to decide the properties for all cables, I'd like to
> > >>>>>> see a example
> > >>>> Why do we think that state and property is the only thing which the
> > >>>> consumer want to know?I am sure there would be some more
> > properties
> > >>>> which would be of some interest to consumers and there is quite a
> > >>>> possibility that in future we might get a patch for that also.So
> > >>>> instead of that limiting it to just state is a good idea.
> > >>>>>> code.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Agreed. If we  agree on the above structure, I can modify the
> > >>>>> charging subsystem patch to use the same structure.
> > >>>>> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/18/219). This would give a
> > >>>>> reference for the
> > >>>> new feature.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You explained following changed state of USB according to Host
> > >>>>>> state on other patch.
> > >>>>>> ---------------------------
> > >>>>>> For USB2.0
> > >>>>>> 1) CONNECT (100mA)->UPDATE(500mA)->DISCONNECT(0mA)
> > >>>>>> 2) CONNECT (100mA)->UPDATE(500mA)->HOST
> > >>>> SUSPEND(2.5mA/500mA)-
> > >>>>>>> DISCONNECT(0mA)
> > >>>>>> 3) CONNECT (100mA)->UPDATE(500mA)->HOST
> > >>>> SUSPEND(2.5mA/500mA)-
> > >>>>>>> HOST RESUME(500mA)->DISCONNECT(0mA)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> For USB 3.0
> > >>>>>> 4) CONNECT (150mA)->UPDATE(900mA)->DISCONNECT(0mA)
> > >>>>>> 5) CONNECT (150mA)->UPDATE(900mA)-> HOST
> > >>>> SUSPEND(2.5mA/900mA)-
> > >>>>>>> DISCONNECT(0mA)
> > >>>>>> 6) CONNECT (100mA)->UPDATE(900mA)->HOST
> > >>>> SUSPEND(2.5mA/900mA)-
> > >>>>>>> HOST RESUME(900mA)->DISCONNECT(0mA)
> > >>>>>> ---------------------------
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I have a question. Can the provider device driver(e.g.,
> > >>>>>> extcon-max77693.c/
> > >>>>>> extcon-max8997.c) detect the changed state of host? I'd like to
> > >>>>>> see the example device driver that the provider device driver
> > >>>>>> detect changed state of host.
> > >>>>>> Could you provide example device driver?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Good question. The OTG drivers are capable of identifying the
> > >>>>> SUSPEND
> > >>>> event.
> > >>>>> System cannot setup SDP (USB host) charging with maximum charging
> > >>>>> current - 500mA (USB2.0/ 900mA(USB 3)) without enumerating the
> > USB.
> > >>>>> The USB enumeration can be done only with a USB/OTG driver. IMHO
> > >>>>> the above extcon drivers (extcon-max77693.c/ extcon-max8997.c) are
> > >>>>> not capable of doing the USB enumeration and identifying the
> > >>>>> charge current. They can just identify the charger type -
> > >> SDP/DCP/CDP/ACA/AC.
> > >>>>> The intelligence for USB enumeration should be inside USB/OTG
> > driver.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>        
>   
>          
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists