[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99810132-85b6-45ee-9933-7a00c3672c47@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:53:51 +0530
From: Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Uttkarsh Aggarwal
<quic_uaggarwa@...cinc.com>
CC: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Thinh Nguyen
<Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<quic_ppratap@...cinc.com>, <quic_jackp@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: snps,dwc3: Add
snps,filter-se0-fsls-eop quirk
On 11/7/2024 3:25 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/11/2024 07:17, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/18/2024 11:57 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 05:10:54PM +0530, Uttkarsh Aggarwal wrote:
>>>> Adding a new 'snps,filter-se0-fsls-eop quirk' DT quirk to dwc3 core to set
>>>> GUCTL1 BIT 29. When set, controller will ignore single SE0 glitch on the
>>>> linestate during transmission. Only two or more SE0 is considered as
>>>> valid EOP on FS/LS port. This bit is applicable only in FS in device mode
>>>> and FS/LS mode of operation in host mode.
>>>
>>> Why this is not device/compatible specific? Just like all other quirks
>>> pushed last one year.
>>
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> Apologies for a late reply from our end.
>>
>> In DWC3 core/dwc3-qcom atleast, there have been no compatible specific
>> quirks added.
>
Sorry again for late reply.
> Nothing stops from adding these, I think.
>
Agree, we can take that approach of adding soc specific compatibles to
dwc3 driver instead of adding through bindings.
>> Also since this is a property of the Synopsys controller
>> hardware and not QC specific one, can we add it in bindings itself.
>> Because this is a property other vendors might also use and adding it
>> via compatible might not be appropriate.
>
> This does no answer my question. I don't see how this is not related to
> one specific piece of SoC.
>
> If you claim this is board-related, not SoC, give some arguments.
> Repeating the same is just no helping.
>
But my point was that although the issue was found only on some QC
SoC's, the solution still lies in some bits being set in controller
register space and it is part of Synopsys IP. So wouldn't officially we
add that support in bindings and then enable/disable the feature via DT
like we did for other quirks ? If many SoC's need it in future, the
driver needs to add a long list of compatible specific data which
otherwise might be quirks in DT.
Regards,
Krishna,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists