Message-ID: <20160907074428.GB13903@b29397-desktop>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:44:28 +0800
From:   Peter Chen <hzpeterchen@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>, Leo Li <pku.leo@...il.com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@....com>,
        Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>,
        David Fisher <david.fisher1@...opsys.com>,
        "Thang Q. Nguyen" <tqnguyen@....com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: host: inherit dma configuration from parent
 dev

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 03:27:43PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 1:50:48 PM CEST Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
> > > On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 9:40:19 AM CEST Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> this only solves the problem for DT devices. Legacy devices and
> > >> PCI-based systems will still suffer from the same problem. At least for
> > >> dwc3, I will only be taking patches that solve the problem for all
> > >> users, not a subset of them.
> > >
> > > I don't think legacy devices are a worry, because they wouldn't
> > > have this problem. For the PCI case, you are right that it cannot
> > > work, in particular for machines that have complex IOMMU setup.
> > >
> > > Some architectures (at least arm64 and sparc) check the bus_type of
> > > a device in order to find the correct set of dma_map_ops for that
> > > device, so there is no real way to handle this as long as you
> > > pass a platform_device into an API that expects a pci_device.
> > 
> > Then I guess we're left with adding a "struct device *dma_dev" to struct
> > dwc3 and trying to figure out if we should use parent or self. Does
> > anybody see any problems with that?
> 
> I think we actually need the device pointer in the usb_hcd structure,
> so it can be passed in these API calls from the USB core
> 
> drivers/usb/core/buffer.c:      return dma_alloc_coherent(hcd->self.controller, size, dma, mem_flags);
> drivers/usb/core/buffer.c:      dma_free_coherent(hcd->self.controller, size, addr, dma);
> drivers/usb/core/buffer.c:          (!hcd->self.controller->dma_mask &&
> drivers/usb/core/buffer.c:              hcd->pool[i] = dma_pool_create(name, hcd->self.controller,
> drivers/usb/core/hcd.c:                 urb->setup_dma = dma_map_single(
> drivers/usb/core/hcd.c:                 if (dma_mapping_error(hcd->self.controller,
> drivers/usb/core/hcd.c:                         n = dma_map_sg(
> drivers/usb/core/hcd.c:                         urb->transfer_dma = dma_map_page(
> drivers/usb/core/hcd.c:                         if (dma_mapping_error(hcd->self.controller,
> drivers/usb/core/hcd.c:                         urb->transfer_dma = dma_map_single(
> drivers/usb/core/hcd.c:                         if (dma_mapping_error(hcd->self.controller,
> drivers/usb/core/usb.c:         urb->transfer_dma = dma_map_single(controller,
> drivers/usb/core/usb.c: return dma_map_sg(controller, sg, nents,
> drivers/usb/core/usb.c:         dma_sync_single_for_cpu(controller,
> drivers/usb/core/usb.c:                 dma_sync_single_for_cpu(controller,
> drivers/usb/core/usb.c: dma_sync_sg_for_cpu(controller, sg, n_hw_ents,
> 
> as these are all called on behalf of the host controller node.

The USB HCD core uses the struct device pointer passed by usb_create_hcd
which is called by each host controller driver, the host controller driver
needs to make sure the information (DMA configurations, of_node, etc)
in struct device are correct before calling usb_create_hcd.

> Looking for more instances of hcd->self.controller, I find this
> instance:
> 
> drivers/usb/core/hcd.c:         struct usb_phy *phy = usb_get_phy_dev(hcd->self.controller, 0);
> drivers/usb/core/hcd.c:         struct phy *phy = phy_get(hcd->self.controller, "usb");
> 
> I'm unsure which device pointer we want here, but I suspect this also
> needs to be the one that has the device node in order to make the lookup
> of the phy structure by device node work right. Can you clarify how
> this works today?
> 

The above codes are only called when the host controller driver does not
the code which try to get USB PHY. Once the PHY drivers is probed, the
above code can work no matter DT or non-DT.

But by looking at the code, I am wondering how dwc3 host get its USB PHY at
xhci-platform.c, it seems there is no of_node at xhci-hcd for dwc3.

> We probably also need to add the of_node of the host controller device
> to struct usb_hcd in order to make usb_of_get_child_node() work
> in the case where the hcd itself is not device that is listed
> in DT.

The pre-condition of DT function at USB HCD core works is the host
controller device has of_node, since it is the root node for USB tree
described at DT. If the host controller device is not at DT, it needs
to try to get its of_node, the chipidea driver gets it through its
parent node [1]

> It might be a good idea to use 'struct fwnode_handle' for that,
> so we can in the future also allow ACPI platforms to specify 
> 
> > Note, we would NOT be passing device pointers are platform_data, we
> > would have dwc3.ko figure out if it should use self or its parent device
> > for dma.
> 
> Ok, sounds good.
> 
> 	Arnd

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/8/119

-- 

Best Regards,
Peter Chen

Powered by blists - more mailing lists