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: <8f367d9b85924f8e9cc9cb6fdff9a054@BN1BFFO11FD040.protection.gbl>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:23:55 -0800
From:	Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
To:	Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
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

On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 05:21PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> 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?

I haven't re-tested it since I submitted the patches, but at that time
it worked. But I also didn't test USB with the pinctrl patches together.
I'll do some testing later today.

	Soren
--
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/