Re: [PATCH 2/5 v11] arm: omap: usb: ehci and ohci hwmod structuresfor omap3

[Munegowda, Keshava]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Again,
>
> I created a new version of the patch which should be better than this
> hack, I'll send it as an RFC to the l-o list in a bit.

cool ! our discussion helped me.
please send the patch..



> On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 13:49 +0200, Munegowda, Keshava wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 09:12 +0200, Munegowda, Keshava wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Munegowda, Keshava
>> >> <keshava_mgowda@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 08:04 +0200, Basak, Partha wrote:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >> Texas Instruments Oy, Tekniikantie 12, 02150 Espoo. Y-tunnus: 0115040-6. Kotipaikka: Helsinki
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> > Texas Instruments Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki, Finland. Business ID: 0115040-6. Domicile: Helsinki
>> >
>> >
> Texas Instruments Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki, Finland. Business ID: 0115040-6. Domicile: Helsinki
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >From: Munegowda, Keshava [mailto:keshava_mgowda@xxxxxx]
>> >> >>> >Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 7:49 PM
>> >> >>> >To: Paul Walmsley; Tero Kristo; b-cousson@xxxxxx; balbi@xxxxxx;
>> >> >>> >parthab@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >>> >Cc: linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
>> >> >>> >kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gadiyar@xxxxxx; sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> >> >>> >tony@xxxxxxxxxxx; khilman@xxxxxx; johnstul@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> >> >>> >vishwanath.bs@xxxxxx
>> >> >>> >Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5 v11] arm: omap: usb: ehci and ohci hwmod
>> >> >>> >structures for omap3
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Munegowda, Keshava wrote:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >>> >wrote:
>> >> >>> >>>
>> >> >>> >>> But the question arises here , why do we need these ehci and ohci as
>> >> >>> >two
>> >> >>> >>> different hwmods containing only irq and base address? It is required
>> >> >>> >>> for future - to implement remote wakeup feature for ehci and ohci
>> >> >>> >ports
>> >> >>> >>> depending on irq-chain handler patches by Tero. Separate hwmods for
>> >> >>> >ehci
>> >> >>> >>> and ohci are needed to enable prcm chain-handler to uniquely identify
>> >> >>> >>> the wakeup source as ehci or ohci and call only the corresponding
>> >> >>> >>> interrupt handler. We will be using omap_hwmod_mux_init for ehci and
>> >> >>> >>> ohci hwmods to enable I/O wakeup capability for respective IO-pads.
>> >> >>> >>> Depending on the particular wakeup source(ehci/ohci), the
>> >> >>> >corresponding
>> >> >>> >>> ehci or ohci irq handler will be called.
>> >> >>> >>>
>> >> >>> >>> If ehci and ohci are combined with usbhs hwmod as a single hwmod ,
>> >> >>> >then
>> >> >>> >>> for every wakeup (either ehci or ohci port wakeup) only the first
>> >> >>> >>> interrupt handler will be called (please look at the function
>> >> >>> >>> omap_hwmod_mux_handle_irq of
>> >> >>> >>>
>> >> >>> >>> /arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c file ; in tero's latest patch:
>> >> >>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg53139.html)
>> >> >>> >>> , so in this
>> >> >>> >>> case, if ehci interrupt is the first interrupt , then even for ohci
>> >> >>> >wakeup
>> >> >>> >>> , only ehci interrupt will get called; which will break the
>> >> >>> >functionality.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Any reason why this couldn't be handled either by:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> 1. adding an IRQ number field to struct omap_hwmod_mux_info, and
>> >> >>> >changing
>> >> >>> >> _omap_hwmod_mux_handle_irq() to raise that IRQ number?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >yes, it is possible by changing the existing irq-chain handler by tero
>> >> >>> >Kristo
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >I am looping tero too.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >So here are new requirements for the irq-chain handler
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >1. The hwmod should have have option to have multiple mux structures
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >This is something like:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >The existing mux structure definition in omap_hwmod [file:
>> >> >>> >/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/omap_hwmod.h ] structure
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >     struct omap_hwmod_mux_info      *mux;
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >it should changed to
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >     struct omap_hwmod_mux_info      **pmux;
>> >> >>> >         U32                                            mux_cnt;
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >pmux - pointers to mux ; array of mux structures.
>> >> >>> >mux_cnt - number of mux per hwmod.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >2. The mux  omap_hwmod_mux_info  structure should have new member
>> >> >>> >called irq, like as follows:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >struct omap_hwmod_mux_info {
>> >> >>> >     int                             nr_pads;
>> >> >>> >     ...
>> >> >>> >        ....
>> >> >>> >        u32                           irq;
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >};
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >Upon wakeup of the I/O pad of the mux , the irq-chain handler should
>> >> >>> >invoke the irq handler of the irq numbered <map_hwmod_mux_info.irq>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >3.  There should be "SOME WAY" to supply the irqs  from hwmod
>> >> >>> >structure (omap_hwmod) to mux structure (omap_hwmod_mux_info)
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >if you , tero and other opensource people are aligned on the proposed
>> >> >>> >changes on the irq-handler ;
>> >> >>> >then it is possible to have two hwmods ( usbhs and tll) for usbhost
>> >> >>> >driver.
>> >> >>> >please let me know you comments on the above approach.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hello Tero,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I would like to draw your attention to the following thread:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> We need to support the following:
>> >> >>> 1. Ability to associate multiple mux info to a hwmod.
>> >> >>> 2. Able to associate a particular irq handler to a mux info.
>> >> >>> 3. PRCM Chain handler should loop through all mux-info arrays
>> >> >>>    for a particular hwmod to identify the possible wakeup source(s)
>> >> >>>    and call the appropriate irq handler for that mux-info.
>> >> >>>    (It is possible that both mux-info are woken up in which case both
>> >> >>> handlers should be called).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> To give you a little more perspective, EHCI & OHCI are co-controllers
>> >> >>> under UHH/TLL.
>> >> >>> They do not get presented separately to the OCP bus, hence do not qualify
>> >> >>> as separate hwmods
>> >> >>> (Paul had objected to the design approach representing EHCI & OHCI as
>> >> >>> different hwmods).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> However, we need a mechanism to efficiently identify/distinguish
>> >> >>> remote-wakeup, connect/disconnect
>> >> >>> On to an EHCI port vs an OHCI port & call only the correct interrupt
>> >> >>> handler(EHCI or OHCI).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>  To incorporate this, chain handler implementation would need some
>> >> >>> enhancements.
>> >> >>>  We can look into the details in the next merge window cycle in
>> >> >>> conjunction with aggressive clock management support for EHCI/OHCI.
>> >> >>>  But fundamentally, if you are aligned to the approach, we can go ahead
>> >> >>> collapsing the EHCI & OHCI hwmods into one.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So, you would need a mechanism to do something like this:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> pad a or b wakeup detected -> irq0
>> >> >> pad c or d wakeup detected -> irq1?
>> >> >
>> >> > yes, if get something like this , its perfect.
>> >>
>> >> Hi Tero
>> >>            Are you posting the patches with these changes?
>> >> please let me know when you will be able to post the patches.
>> >> so that I start the design of usb host remote wakeup using your changes.
>> >>
>> >> regards
>> >> keshava
>> >>
>> >
>> > Sorry for the delay, but I am still not quite sure how this should be
>> > handled for upstream. Attached is a proposal hack patch that should
>> > work, you can at least try it out to see what happens. It applies on top
>> > of my latest PRCM chain handler set (version 9.) Patch desc contains a
>> > guide how to use it.
>> >
>> > -Tero
>>
>>
>> Thanks tero,
>>           we are still in the internal design discussion of usbhs remote wakeup.
>> but, we are looking for the upstreamable code.
>> I request please send it as formal patch so that we will align with
>> Paul, benoit, kevin
>> Felipe and all other USB and PM experts.
>>
>> regards
>> keshava
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/