Re: [RESEND][PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: add non-removable-ports hub property

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:28:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 03:15:11PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 04:56:15PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > >> Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >> 
> > >> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 03:25:03PM +0000, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> > >> >> Add a non-removable-ports property that lists the hardwired downstream
> > >> >> ports of a hub.  Although hubs can provide this information, they are
> > >> >> not always configured correctly.  An alternate means of indicating this
> > >> >> for built-in USB devices is thus useful.
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <mans@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >> >
> > >> > I reviewed this already, but since you didn't add my reviewed-by, I'm 
> > >> > looking at it again and having 2nd thoughts.
> > >> >
> > >> >> ---
> > >> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-device.txt | 4 ++++
> > >> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-device.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-device.txt
> > >> >> index 036be172b1ae..92d863cc96b6 100644
> > >> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-device.txt
> > >> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-device.txt
> > >> >> @@ -66,6 +66,10 @@ Required properties for host-controller nodes with device nodes:
> > >> >>  - #size-cells: shall be 0
> > >> >>  
> > >> >>  
> > >> >> +Optional properties for hub and host-controller nodes:
> > >> >> +- non-removable-ports: list of hardwired downstream ports
> > >> >
> > >> > If you have a hardwired device and need to know that, doesn't that imply 
> > >> > there's some other stuff you need to describe beyond what a standard USB 
> > >> > device has. Such as a power supply that's not Vbus from the hub.
> > >> 
> > >> I suppose there could be, but there isn't in my actual situation.
> > >> 
> > >> > At a minimum, I think this should be a per port property.
> > >> 
> > >> That's what I suggested first.  Greg told me to do it like this instead.
> > >
> > > I said that?  I do not remember discussing this at all, when did that
> > > happen?
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190228155241.GC12050@xxxxxxxxx/
> 
> Almost a full year ago!  Hah, I can't remember what I wrote last week.

Ah, ok, all I said was "do what ACPI does here", as that's a model of
what has already been agreed apon by a whole huge number of people and
standardized.  No need for DT to come up with something totally
different instead, making a mess of things :)

If this is doing what ACPI does, fine, if not, it should.  It was here
first.

thanks,

greg k-h