| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:17:49 +0200
From: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] phy: ulpi: add driver for TI TUSB1210
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:45:39AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:18:22AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > TUSB1210 ULPI PHY has vendor specific register for eye
> > diagram tuning. On some platforms the system firmware has
> > set optimized value to it. In order to not loose the
> > optimized value, the driver stores it during probe and
> > restores it every time the PHY is powered back on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/phy/ulpi/Kconfig | 11 ++++
> > drivers/phy/ulpi/Makefile | 2 +
> > drivers/phy/ulpi/tusb1210.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/phy/ulpi/tusb1210.c
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/ulpi/Kconfig b/drivers/phy/ulpi/Kconfig
> > index 8007df2..7cd6f82 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/ulpi/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/ulpi/Kconfig
> > @@ -7,3 +7,14 @@ config ULPI_PHY
> > Say yes if you have ULPI PHY attached to your USB controller.
> >
> > If unsure, say N.
> > +
> > +if ULPI_PHY
> > +
> > +config ULPI_TUSB1210
> > + tristate "TI TUSB1210 USB PHY module"
> > + depends on POWER_SUPPLY
> > + select USB_PHY
> > + help
> > + Support for TI TUSB1210 USB ULPI PHY.
> > +
> > +endif
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/ulpi/Makefile b/drivers/phy/ulpi/Makefile
> > index 59e61cb..7ee6679 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/ulpi/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/ulpi/Makefile
> > @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@
> > ulpiphy-y := ulpi.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_ULPI_PHY) += ulpiphy.o
> > +
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_ULPI_TUSB1210) += tusb1210.o
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/ulpi/tusb1210.c b/drivers/phy/ulpi/tusb1210.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..ac77f98
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/ulpi/tusb1210.c
>
> do you really need this extra ulpi directory ?
>
> I wonder if phy-tusb1210.c as a name would be enough.
IMO grouping the ULPI PHY drivers and other ULPI bus code into
separate folder from the start is the right thing to do.
> > @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
> > +/**
> > + * tusb1210.c - TUSB1210 USB ULPI PHY driver
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2015 Intel Corporation
> > + *
> > + * Author: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > + */
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/phy/ulpi/driver.h>
> > +#include <linux/phy/ulpi/regs.h>
> > +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> > +
> > +#include "ulpi_phy.h"
> > +
> > +struct tusb1210 {
> > + struct ulpi *ulpi;
> > + struct phy *phy;
> > + struct gpio_desc *gpio_reset;
> > + struct gpio_desc *gpio_cs;
> > + u8 ctx[1];
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int tusb1210_power_on(struct phy *phy)
> > +{
> > + struct tusb1210 *tusb = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> > +
> > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(tusb->gpio_reset, 1);
> > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(tusb->gpio_cs, 1);
> > +
> > + /* Restore eye optimisation value */
> > + ulpi_write(tusb->ulpi, ULPI_EXT_VENDOR_SPECIFIC, tusb->ctx[0]);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int tusb1210_power_off(struct phy *phy)
> > +{
> > + struct tusb1210 *tusb = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> > +
> > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(tusb->gpio_reset, 0);
> > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(tusb->gpio_cs, 0);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct phy_ops phy_ops = {
> > + .power_on = tusb1210_power_on,
> > + .power_off = tusb1210_power_off,
> > + .init = tusb1210_power_on,
> > + .exit = tusb1210_power_off,
> > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int tusb1210_probe(struct ulpi *ulpi)
> > +{
> > + struct gpio_desc *gpio;
> > + struct tusb1210 *tusb;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + tusb = devm_kzalloc(&ulpi->dev, sizeof(*tusb), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!tusb)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + gpio = devm_gpiod_get(&ulpi->dev, "reset");
> > + if (!IS_ERR(gpio)) {
> > + ret = gpiod_direction_output(gpio, 0);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + tusb->gpio_reset = gpio;
> > + }
> > +
> > + gpio = devm_gpiod_get(&ulpi->dev, "cs");
> > + if (!IS_ERR(gpio)) {
> > + ret = gpiod_direction_output(gpio, 0);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + tusb->gpio_cs = gpio;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Store initial eye diagram optimisation value */
> > + ret = ulpi_read(ulpi, ULPI_EXT_VENDOR_SPECIFIC);
>
> do they *all* use this register for eye diagram optimization or is this
> something that Intel decided to do ?
>
> (sorry, don't know much about tusb1210 other than it sucks like hell :-)
All I know that somebody needs to save the value. The ones using this
PHY who don't need to save it can most likely live without the driver.
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + tusb->ctx[0] = ret;
> > +
> > + tusb->phy = ulpi_phy_create(ulpi, &phy_ops);
> > + if (IS_ERR(tusb->phy))
> > + return PTR_ERR(tusb->phy);
> > +
> > + tusb->ulpi = ulpi;
> > +
> > + phy_set_drvdata(tusb->phy, tusb);
> > + dev_set_drvdata(&ulpi->dev, tusb);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void tusb1210_remove(struct ulpi *ulpi)
> > +{
> > + struct tusb1210 *tusb = dev_get_drvdata(&ulpi->dev);
>
> completely unrelated to $subject, but we might want to have a
> ulpi_{set,get}_drvdata() at some point.
Makes sense.
> In fact, we might decide to add an entire ULPI bus, eventually, though
> I'm still considering if there's any benefit to that.
I don't think I understand this comment? ULPI bus is what I'm
introducing in this set (the first patch in it)?
> > +
> > + ulpi_phy_destroy(ulpi, tusb->phy);
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define TI_VENDOR_ID 0x0451
> > +
> > +static struct ulpi_device_id tusb1210_ulpi_id[] = {
> > + { TI_VENDOR_ID, 0x1508, },
> > + { },
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(ulpi, tusb1210_ulpi_id);
> > +
> > +static struct ulpi_driver tusb1210_driver = {
> > + .id_table = tusb1210_ulpi_id,
> > + .probe = tusb1210_probe,
> > + .remove = tusb1210_remove,
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = "tusb1210",
> > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > + },
> > +};
> > +
> > +module_ulpi_driver(tusb1210_driver);
> > +
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Intel Corporation");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> comment says GPL 2 only, this says GPL 2+
True. I'll fix it.
Thanks!
--
heikki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists