Re: [PATCH v17 2/3] usb: USB Type-C connector class

[Peter Chen]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 06:44:47AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 03/07/2017 10:50 PM, Peter Chen wrote:
> >
> >>>>You mean type-C trigger an ACPI event, and this ACPI event can notify
> >>>>related USB controller driver doing role switch?
> >>>
> >>>No (firmware programs the dual-role hw/registers), but never mind.
> >>>That could be the case.
> >>>
> >>>>If it is correct, there is a notifier between type-C and USB
> >>>>controller driver, how to define this notifier for non-ACPI platform?
> >>>
> >>>Once there is a platform with Type-C like that, the problem needs to
> >>>be solved. However..
> >>>
> >>>>>I'm not commenting on Roger's dual role patch series, but I don't
> >>>>>really think it should be mixed with Type-C. USB Type-C and USB
> >>>>>Power Delivery define their own ways of handling the roles, and they
> >>>>>are not limited to the data role only. Things like OTG for example
> >>>>>will, and actually can not be supported. With Type-C we will have
> >>>>>competing state machines compared to OTG. The dual-role framework
> >>>>>may be useful on systems that provide more traditional connectors,
> >>>>>which possibly have the ID-pin like micro-AB, and possibly also
> >>>>>support OTG. It can also be something that exist in parallel with the Type-C
> >>class, but there just can not be any dependencies between the two.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, there are two independent things. But if the kernel doesn't have
> >>>>a notifier between type-C message sender (type-c class) and message
> >>>>receiver (like USB controller driver for role switch or other drivers
> >>>>for alternate mode message), we had to find some ways at userspace.
> >>>
> >>>..what ever the solution is, it really can't rely on user space.
> >>>
> >>
> >>... and, at least for our application, using extcon for the necessary notifications works
> >>just fine.
> >>
> >
> >I see, that means you have a hardware signal to notify role switch.
> >
> 
> In our case the Type-C protocol manager (including alternate mode handling)
> is implemented in an EC. The EC signals the extcon-cros_ec driver, which
> in turn signals the phy driver as well as the DP driver. The Type-C class
> is orthogonal; extcon-cros_ec will also register with the Type-C class code
> once that is upstream.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, using extcon for signaling was the most convenient means
> for us to pass events around. I am more than open to change it to a bus,
> if that can be made to work - we'd have to keep in mind though that this code
> already works without Type-C infrastructure and is for the most part already
> upstream (the rk3399 code it ties into is upstream, and extcon-cros_ec has been
> submitted as https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9583045/).
> 

I am clear your implementation now, thank, Guenter.

> As for to how to handle alternate mode if the Type-C protocol manager
> (TCPM) is implemented in the kernel - I have not yet implemented it yet,
> but my thinking goes along the line described by Heikki in his last e-mail.
> 
> Note that we also have a kernel driver for FUSB302 which ties into my tcpm
> driver. I'll have to check if that is public yet and if I or someone
> else can publish it if there is interest.
> 
> Guenter
> 

-- 

Best Regards,
Peter Chen