[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1fbb9812-ca50-42eb-95af-1f7c8a2714e3@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 16:24:01 +0530
From: Krishna Kurapati PSSNV <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@...cinc.com>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>,
<quic_ppratap@...cinc.com>, <quic_jackp@...cinc.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: dwc3: Clean up hs_phy_irq in
bindings
On 12/14/2023 3:26 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 09:48:57PM +0530, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote:
>> On 12/13/2023 12:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2023 13:11, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
>>>> The high speed related interrupts present on QC targets are as follows:
>
>>>> Classiffy SoC's into four groups based on whether qusb2_phy interrupt
>
> typo: Classify
>
>>>> or {dp/dm}_hs_phy_irq is used for wakeup in high speed and whether the
>>>> SoCs have hs_phy_irq present in them or not.
>>>>
>>>> The ss_phy_irq is optional interrupt because there are mutliple SoC's
>>>> which either support only High Speed or there are multiple controllers
>>>> within same Soc and the secondary controller is High Speed only capable.
>>>>
>>>> This breaks ABI on targets running older kernels, but since the interrupt
>>>> definitions are given wrong on many targets and to establish proper rules
>>>> for usage of DWC3 interrupts on Qualcomm platforms, DT binding update is
>>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> This still does not explain why missing property has to be added as
>>> first one, causing huge reordering of everything here and in DTS.
>>>
>>> If pwr_event is required and we already break the ABI, reduce the impact
>>> of the change by putting it after all required interrupts. Otherwise
>>> please explain here and in commit msg why different approach is taken.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Krzysztof. I don't know much about the effect of the ordering on ABI.
>> I will try to learn up on it. Would the series be good if we just move
>> the pwr_event to the end and keep everything in v3 as it is, and push v4
>> for now ?
>
> Since all SoCs have the pwr_event (HS) interrupt, but not all
> controllers have the SS PHY interrupt, this would prevent expressing
> that the SS PHY is optional by keeping it last in the binding schema and
> making sure that minItem = maxItems - 1.
>
> And as we discussed, the aim here is to group the three classes of SoCs
> (qusb2, qusb2+, femto) and fix the order of these interrupts once and
> for all so that random reorderings, renames and omissions do not make it
> into the bindings next time someone grabs a downstream DT and sends it
> upstream.
>
Hi Krzysztof,
One more reason is that all targets do have a pwr_event interrupts for
sure and ss_phy is optional as Johan mentioned. So with this reasoning,
can we put pwr_event first followed by others and push ss_phy to the end
of list ?
Regards,
Krishna,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists