[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aa67ea21-b451-4a1d-b4bf-4912b88c0341@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 15:42:07 +0530
From: Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Uttkarsh Aggarwal
<quic_uaggarwa@...cinc.com>,
Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.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 11/20/2024 2:53 PM, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
Hi Krzysztof,
Gentle ping to provide your feedback on the last comment.
Regards,
Krishna,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists