[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <622288dd-cb3c-b673-5544-46ff10106dbc@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 00:40:19 +0530
From: Krishna Kurapati PSSNV <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@...cinc.com>
CC: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
"Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>,
<quic_ppratap@...cinc.com>, <quic_jackp@...cinc.com>,
<quic_harshq@...cinc.com>, <ahalaney@...hat.com>,
<quic_shazhuss@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 08/10] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add multiport
controller node for SC8280
On 6/27/2023 8:46 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 12:43:23PM +0530, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote:
>>> On 21.06.2023 06:36, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
>>>> Add USB and DWC3 node for tertiary port of SC8280 along with multiport
>>>> IRQ's and phy's. This will be used as a base for SA8295P and SA8295-Ride
>>>> platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
>
>>> Not a comment to the patch, but very nice that Qcom ensured every
>>> endpoint is wakeup-capable, this used not to be the case before :D
>
>> Yes wakeup is supported by all ports now, but I didn't make those
>> changes now as I wanted to keep driver code diff minimal and don't need
>> wakeup support for the product currently. But for sure, will update
>> driver code to handle wakeup on all ports in near future.
>
> Why didn't you include it in v9? I thought you had a working
> implementation for this?
>
> Since wakeup will be another case where glue and core need to interact,
> it's good to have the wakeup implementation from the start to be able to
> evaluate your multiport implementation properly.
>
> Right now it looks like you only added wakeup interrupt lookup and
> request, but then you never actually enable them which is not very nice.
>
> Johan
Hi Johan,
As mentioned in one of my comments on earlier patches, wakeup is not a
requirement I currently need to work on for the product. I added
multiport IRQ support only because my pathces need to modify IRQ names.
If there is a customer requirement I get in the future, I will
definitely implement the wakeup part. But for now, I would like to stick
to what is necessary for getting Multiport to work.
Regards,
Krishna,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists