linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: zynq: DT: Add USB to device tree

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54C6698F.5020301@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:21:35 +0100
From:	Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
To:	Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
CC:	monstr@...str.eu, Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@...inx.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Ola Jeppson <ola@...pteva.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: zynq: DT: Add USB to device tree

Am 26.01.2015 um 16:50 schrieb Sören Brinkmann:
> On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 10:35AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 26.01.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Andreas Färber:
>>> Am 26.01.2015 um 09:23 schrieb Michal Simek:
>>>> On 01/26/2015 09:19 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>>> And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to
>>>>> zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly:
>>>>>
>>>>> [  +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
>>>>> [  +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap:
>>>>> f090e100 op: f090e140
>>>>> [  +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral
>>>>> [  +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
>>>>> [  +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap:
>>>>> f0910100 op: f0910140
>>>>> [  +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I missing any other patches or config options?
>>>>> (I do notice that the pinctrl v3 patch that got merged has a trivial bug
>>>>> for usb0, for which I'll send a patch later on.)
>>>>
>>>> Why is it deferred? Is it because of pinmuxing stuff?
>>>
>>> No, happened without as well.
>>>
>>> Looking at a different place in dmesg, I spot this:
>>>
>>> [  +0,003988] usb_phy_generic phy0: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios
>>> [  +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: using device tree for GPIO lookup
>>> [  +0,000015] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios'
>>> property
>>>  of node '/phy0[0]'
>>> [  +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio'
>>> property
>>> of node '/phy0[0]'
>>> [  +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy0: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup
>>> [  +0,000153] usb_phy_generic phy0: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed
>>> [  +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: Error requesting RESET GPIO
>>> [  +0,004360] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy0 failed with error -2
>>> [  +0,004991] usb_phy_generic phy1: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios
>>> [  +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: using device tree for GPIO lookup
>>> [  +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios'
>>> property
>>>  of node '/phy1[0]'
>>> [  +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio'
>>> property of node '/phy1[0]'
>>> [  +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy1: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup
>>> [  +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed
>>> [  +0,000011] usb_phy_generic phy1: Error requesting RESET GPIO
>>> [  +0,004337] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy1 failed with error -2
>>>
>>> So, I guess the chipidea driver is deferring because the phys want a
>>> property that neither me nor you are specifying? Would that be the two
>>> MDIO pins 52 and 53 that would need to be specified?
>>
>> Erm, scratch that last question - wrong PHY. Trying it resolved the
>> above phy errors but not the original problem. And so does an empty one:
>>
>> @@ -99,11 +100,13 @@
>>
>>         usb_phy0: phy0 {
>>                 compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv";
>> +               reset-gpios = <>;
>>                 #phy-cells = <0>;
>>         };
>>
>>         usb_phy1: phy1 {
>>                 compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv";
>> +               reset-gpios = <>;
>>                 #phy-cells = <0>;
>>         };
>>  };
>>
>> In my manuals and notes I can't find any GPIO being used as reset for
>> the USB PHYs. Any thoughts appreciated.
> 
> Such a connection is optional. The platform might rely on its reset
> circuit, though it might not work for warm reboots.
> I haven't looked at parallela docs, but if there is a schematic
> available, that should tell you if/what is connected to the PHY reset
> pin.

I do have the schematic, and the way I read it, only the on-board reset
button resets the PHYs.

Yet it looks as if usb-nop-xceiv insists on a reset-gpios above, no?
Does it work on your boards with linux-next?

And regarding my previous reporting, I was mistaken: I had to increase
the log buffer size due to enabled pinctrl debugging, which made the phy
errors sometimes appear, depending on timing. They're still there.

Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu,
Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)