Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:02:21 +0900
From:   Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] extcon: gpio: Add DT bindings

Hi Rob,

On 2017년 09월 26일 09:39, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>>> Add some reasonable device tree bindings and also add the cable defines
>>> to the extcon include in <dt-bindings/extcon/connectors.h> since
>>> the GPIO extcon definately need to specify which cable/connector it is
>>> detecting.
>>>
>>> Adding the include file makes the (as it happens) Linux numbers into an
>>> ABI, but I do not see any better method. It is possible to define strings
>>> for all cable types but it seems like overkill, just reusing Linux'
>>> enumerators seems like a good idea.
>>>
>>> The binding supports any number of GPIOs and connectors, but the driver
>>> currently only supports one connector on one GPIO line.
>>
>> My view of extcon binding is it is fundamentally broken. I've
>> expressed this multiple times before.
> 
> Sorry, I'm a newcomer in this area, so I was not aware of this.
> 
> Since this is a new binding consumer, is it something we can use
> as role model to fix it?
> 
> If I understand correctly from reading up on the mailing list the root of the
> problem is something like this:
> 
> "extcon" is a linuxism and ambiguous.
> 
> This driver should probe to "gpio-connector" or "gpio-switch" or something
> like that if it should be generic. Or use very domain-specific compatible
> strings (as you describe below), all supported maybe by the same driver
> in the end.
> 
> The reason it is its own subsystem and not part of input (IIUC) is that
> other drivers need to subscribe to events from these connectors,
> they are not intended for userspace input such as keyboard or mice
> or similar.
> 
> In the DTS file you will find stuff using extcons as resources with
>  = <&extcon>; phandles so they can look them up and subscribe
> to events.
> 
> Input has a whole slew of "events" that correspond to some of these
> but a different usecase, but that usecase is just a linuxism in turn, there
> is nothing saying another operating system could have a more versatile
> defintion of "input".
> 
> Maybe from a hardware description PoV these should all move over
> to devicetree/bindings/input - they all provice an input signal to the
> system. The fact that Linux split a subset of these into "extcon"
> is of no concern to the DT bindings.
> 
> Analogous with that some of the stuff in input/ should likely be
> moved to a new output/ directory. Such as pwm-beeper,
> pwm-vibrator etc. The fact that these are in the "input" subsystem
> in Linux is just another linuxism.
> 
>> TL;DR: Anything extending the existing extcon binding will be NAKed.
> 
> That can be a reasonable stance.
> 
> I'm just trying to get this into a state where the code does not stand in
> the way of kernel clean-up. (Especially I want to get rid of the call
> to gpio_to_desc())
> 
> As stated in the cover letter the alternative will be to simply delete
> the driver. But it's better if I can fix the situation, we can't have it
> like this.
> 
>>> +External Connector Using GPIO
>>
>> What kind of connector? All connectors external to something... And
>> GPIO is not a kind of connector on its own, but an implementation.
> 
> Yeah that is a problem with the whole subsystem I guess. Should
> I add a paragraph describing the usecases?
> 
> The whole thing is a bit
> of Androidism and is named like this because Android named it like
> this in their kernel tree.
> 
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +- compatible: should be "extcon-gpio"
>>> +- extcon-gpios: the GPIO lines used for the external connectors
>>
>> This doesn't tell me what the GPIOs functions are and should. For
>> example we have hpd-gpios for HDMI hotplug detect in HDMI connector
>> binding.
> 
> The idea is that this array corresponds to the extcon-connector-types
> right below, I'll clarify that if you think the overall idea is OK.
> 
>>> +  See gpio/gpio.txt
>>> +- extcon-connector-types: set to an unsigned integer value arrat representing the types
>>> +  of this connector, matched to the corresponding GPIO lines in the previous array.
>>
>> This should be determined by the compatible string.
> 
> So a GPIO connector is very versatile. It is "general purpose" by definition,
> so it needs to be subclassed.
> 
> One possibility is to allow just one GPIO and have one comptible-string per
> use case.
> compatible = "gpio-usb-connector";
> compatible = "gpio-charger-connector";
> compatible = "gpio-headphone-connector";
> etc etc
> 
> These bindings on the other hand, assume that the driver will be able
> to handle an array of gpios with an associated array of connector types,
> which reflects how many of the existing extcon-type driver hardware works:
> a single PMIC providing some 5 misc extcons for example.
> 
> For this reason there is a generic compatible string and then the device
> is subclassed per-gpio with the per-gpio connector type.
> 
>>> +/* USB external connector */
>>> +#define EXTCON_USB             1
>>> +#define EXTCON_USB_HOST                2
>>> +#define EXTCON_CHG_USB_SDP     5       /* Standard Downstream Port */
>>> +#define EXTCON_CHG_USB_DCP     6       /* Dedicated Charging Port */
>>> +#define EXTCON_CHG_USB_CDP     7       /* Charging Downstream Port */
>>> +#define EXTCON_CHG_USB_ACA     8       /* Accessory Charger Adapter */
>>> +#define EXTCON_CHG_USB_FAST    9
>>> +#define EXTCON_CHG_USB_SLOW    10
>>> +#define EXTCON_CHG_WPT         11      /* Wireless Power Transfer */
>>> +#define EXTCON_CHG_USB_PD      12      /* USB Power Delivery */
>>
>> These don't all look to be mutually exclusive.
>>
>> For USB PD, isn't that discoverable?

Currently, EXTCON_CHG_USB_PD is not used on any extcon provider drivers.
I think that EXTCON_CHG_USB_PD is discoverable according to the H/W design
such as using ADC.

Also, The charger connectors of extcon are related to power_supply subsystem
because power_supply is in charge of behavior when the connector is attached/detached.
So, the extcon defines the EXTCON_CHG_USB_PD in order to detect this type.

> 
> Someone else would have to answer, this is based on the current
> connector types supported by the Linux kernel.
> 
>>> +/* Display external connector */
>>> +#define EXTCON_DISP_HDMI       40      /* High-Definition Multimedia Interface */
>>> +#define EXTCON_DISP_MHL                41      /* Mobile High-Definition Link */
>>> +#define EXTCON_DISP_DVI                42      /* Digital Visual Interface */
>>> +#define EXTCON_DISP_VGA                43      /* Video Graphics Array */
>>> +#define EXTCON_DISP_DP         44      /* Display Port */
>>> +#define EXTCON_DISP_HMD                45      /* Head-Mounted Display */
>>
>> We already have connector bindings for most of these. Use those as a
>> model for whatever you want to do.
> 
> I guess they are not in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/*
> 
> Please point me in the right direction and I'll check it out.
> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics

Powered by blists - more mailing lists