Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] phy: rockchip-inno-usb2: add a new driver for Rockchip usb2phy

[Frank Wang]

Hi Heiko,

On 2016/6/21 17:05, Heiko StÃbner wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> Am Dienstag, 21. Juni 2016, 15:52:45 schrieb Frank Wang:
> > On 2016/6/20 12:56, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Frank Wang <frank.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > > > > Turns out my problem was one of terminology. Using "suspend" and
> > > > > "resume" to me suggested the common use of suspend and resume
> > > > > functions. That is not the case here. After mentally replacing
> > > > > "suspend" with "power_off" and "resume" with "power_on", you are
> > > > > right, no problem exists. Sorry for the noise.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe it would be useful to replace "resume" with "power_on" and
> > > > > "suspend" with "power_off" in the function and variable names to
> > > > > reduce confusion and misunderstandings.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Guenter
> > > > Well, it does have a bits confusion, however, the phy-port always just
> > > > goes
> > > > to suspend and resume mode (Not power off and power on) in a fact. So
> > > > must
> > > > it be renamed?
> > > Other phy drivers name the functions _power_off and _power_on and
> > > avoid the confusion. The callbacks are named .power_off and .power_on,
> > > which gives a clear indication of its intended purpose. Other drivers
> > > implementing suspend/resume (such as the omap usb phy driver) tie
> > > those functions not into the power_off/power_on callbacks, but into
> > > the driver's suspend/resume callbacks. At least the omap driver has
> > > separate power management functions.
> > >
> > > Do the functions _have_ to be renamed ? Surely not. But, if the
> > > functions are really suspend/resume functions and not
> > > power_off/power_on functions, maybe they should tie to the
> > > suspend/resume functions and not register themselves as
> > > power_off/power_on functions ?
> > As Guenter mentioned above,  I doped out two solutions, one is that keep
> > current process but renaming *_resume/*_suspend to
> > *_power_on/*_power_off;
> in a way, naming stuff "power_off", "power_on" actually matches. For one, the
> phy-block goes from unusable to usable by usb-devices and also will power-on a
> phy-supply regulator (often named vcc_host* on Rockchip boards) from the phy-
> core.
>
> > another is that do not assign power_on/power_off
> > functions for phy_ops at phy creating time, then, shorten
> > _SCHEDULE_DELAY_ delay time less that 10 Seconds, and the phy-port
> > suspend/resume mechanism depend on _sm_work_ completely.
> Which in turn would mean that we would always depend on a fully controllable
> phy block. Right now it seems, rk3036, rk3228, rk3368 (probably forgot some)
> have the same type of phy, but with at least the unplug-detection missing.
> In its current form the driver can very well support those (later on) by
> simply working statically (only acting on phy_power callbacks and not going to
> suspend on its own).
>
> Also having the work running in 10-second intervall seems wasteful.
>
> > So which is the better way from your view? or would you like to give
> > other unique perceptions please?
> As obvious from the above, I would prefer just renaming the functions :-)
>
> Heiko

Got it, thanks for your comments. I am going to correct and send out a 
new version later today, so sorry for trouble you to sign 'Reviewed-by' 
again if no any other issues.


BR.
Frank