linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: add bcm63xx-usbh bindings

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: <F5FC8442-319A-48A7-BEEA-92C0EADE6BDA@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:16:34 +0200
From:   Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     simon@...e.lp0.eu, Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@...il.com>,
        kishon@...com, vkoul@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
        krzk@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, alcooperx@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: add bcm63xx-usbh bindings

Hi Florian,

> El 16 jun 2020, a las 19:17, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> escribió:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/16/2020 1:34 AM, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
>> Document BCM63xx USBH PHY bindings.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>
>> ---
>> .../bindings/phy/brcm,bcm63xx-usbh-phy.yaml   | 72 +++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/brcm,bcm63xx-usbh-phy.yaml
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/brcm,bcm63xx-usbh-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/brcm,bcm63xx-usbh-phy.yaml
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..3e7c97799b91
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/brcm,bcm63xx-usbh-phy.yaml
>> @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
>> +%YAML 1.2
>> +---
>> +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/phy/brcm,bcm63xx-usbh-phy.yaml#"
>> +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#"
>> +
>> +title: BCM63xx USBH PHY
>> +
>> +maintainers:
>> +  - Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>
>> +
>> +properties:
>> +  compatible:
>> +    enum:
>> +      - brcm,bcm6318-usbh-phy
>> +      - brcm,bcm6328-usbh-phy
>> +      - brcm,bcm6358-usbh-phy
>> +      - brcm,bcm6362-usbh-phy
>> +      - brcm,bcm6368-usbh-phy
>> +      - brcm,bcm63268-usbh-phy
>> +
>> +  reg:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  clocks:
>> +    maxItems: 2
>> +
>> +  clock-names:
>> +    items:
>> +      - const: usbh
>> +      - const: usb_ref
>> +
>> +  resets:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  "#phy-cells":
>> +    const: 0
> 
> On 6328, the same register space allows the controlling of the USB PHY
> in either host or device mode, so I believe you would need to add a
> #phy-cells = 1 in order to distinguish the consumer (host versus device)
> if we get to the point where drivers/usb/gadget/udc/bcm63xx_udc.c
> becomes DT aware.

I’ve just realized that I have implemented this wrong in v3, because I implemented the SwapControl USB_DEVICE_SEL value, and you meant the UTMIControl1 USB_DEVICE_MODE_SEL value.
So I have a couple of questions about this, because I haven’t got any bcm63xx with usb device configuration to test:
- Is USB_DEVICE_SEL also needed in SwapControl or do we only need USB_DEVICE_MODE_SEL in UTMIControl1?
- Are the rest of the host values needed when configured in device mode? Should I only set the device values when in device mode?

> 
> Other than that, this looks good to me!
> -- 
> Florian

Best regards,
Álvaro.