Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add gpio-usb-c-connector compatible
From: Krishna Kurapati PSSNV
Date: Sat Mar 30 2024 - 09:46:56 EST
On 3/30/2024 7:09 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 at 11:13, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV
<quic_kriskura@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/29/2024 6:23 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 at 09:20, Krishna Kurapati
<quic_kriskura@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
QDU1000 IDP [1] has a Type-c connector and supports USB 3.0.
However it relies on usb-conn-gpio driver to read the vbus and id
gpio's and provide role switch. However the driver currently has
only gpio-b-connector compatible present in ID table. Adding that
in DT would mean that the device supports Type-B connector and not
Type-c connector. Thanks to Dmitry Baryshkov for pointing it out [2].
USB-B connector is pretty simple, it really has just an ID pin and
VBUS input, which translates to two GPIOs being routed from the
_connector_ itself.
USB-C is much more complicated, it has two CC pins and a VBus power
pin. It is not enough just to measure CC pin levels. Moreover,
properly handling USB 3.0 inside a USB-C connector requires a separate
'orientation' signal to tell the host which two lanes must be used for
the USB SS signals. Thus it is no longer possible to route just two
pins from the connector to the SoC.
Having all that in mind, I suspect that you are not describing your
hardware properly. I suppose that you have a Type-C port controller /
redriver / switch, which handles CC lines communication and then
provides ID / VBUS signals to the host. In such a case, please
describe this TCPC in the DT file and use its compatible string
instead of "gpio-c-connector".
Hi Dmitry,
My bad. I must have provided more details of the HW.
I presume you are referring to addition of a connector node, type-c
switch, pmic-glink and other remote endpoints like in other SoC's like
SM8450/ SM8550/ SM8650.
This HW is slightly different. It has a Uni Phy for Super speed and
hence no DP.
This is fine and it's irrelevant for the USB-C.
For orientation switching, on mobile SoC's, there is a provision for
orientation gpio given in pmic-glink node and is handled in ucsi_glink
driver. But on this version of HW, there is a USB-C Switch with its own
firmware taking care of orientation switching. It takes 8 SS Lines and 2
CC lines coming from connector as input and gives out 4 SS Lines (SS
TX1/TX2 RX1/RX2) as output which go to the SoC. So orientation switch is
done by the USB-C-switch in between and it automatically routes
appropriate active SS Lane from connector to the SoC.
This is also fine. As I wrote, you _have_ the Type-C port controller.
So your DT file should be describing your hardware.
As usual like in other targets, the DP and DM lines from type-c
connector go to the SoC directly.
To handle role switch, the VBUS and ID Pin connections are given to
SoC as well. There is a vbus controller regulator present to provide
vbus to connected peripherals in host mode.
There is no PPM entity (ADSP in mobile SoC's) and no UCSI involved
here. Hence we rely on usb-conn-gpio to read the vbus/id and switch
roles accordingly.
This is also fine.
You confirmed my suspicions. You have an external Type-C switch which
handles orientation (and most likely PD or non-PD power negotiation)
for you. It has GPIO outputs, etc.
But it is not a part of the connector. Instead of adding the
"gpio-usb-c-connector", add proper compatible string (see, how this is
handled e.g. by the spidev - it is a generic driver, but it requires
hardware-specific compatibles).
Your hardware description should look like:
typec {
compatible = "your,switch";
id-gpios = <&gpio 1>;
vbus-gpios = <&gpio 2>;
vbus-supplies = <®-vbus>;
ports {
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
port@0 {
endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&usb_dwc3_hs_out>;
};
};
port@1 {
endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&usb_uni_phy_out>;
};
};
/* No SBU port */
};
};
> Note, I haven't said anything regarding the driver. You can continue
using the usb-conn-gpio driver. Just add a compatible string for you
switch.
Got it. So the "usb_conn_gpio: usb-conn-gpio" in [1] to be replaced
with something like a "typec- " naming convention and add a new
compatible to gpio-conn (something specific to qcom-qdu) and use it in
the new DT node.
Thanks for the suggestion. Is it fine if it put the whole of the above
text in v2 and push it for getting a new compatible added to connector
binding and usb-conn driver and then send v3 of DT changes or mix this
series with the DT series ?
[1]:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240319091020.15137-3-quic_kbajaj@xxxxxxxxxxx/
Thanks,
Krishna,
Hope this answers the query as to why we wanted to use usb-conn-gpio
and why we were trying to add a new compatible.
Regards,
Krishna,
This series intends to add that compatible in driver and bindings
so that it can be used in QDU1000 IDP DT.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240319091020.15137-3-quic_kbajaj@xxxxxxxxxxx/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAA8EJprXPvji8TgZu1idH7y4GtHtD4VmQABFBcRt-9BQaCberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Krishna Kurapati (2):
dt-bindings: connector: Add gpio-usb-c-connector compatible
usb: common: usb-conn-gpio: Update ID table to add usb-c connector
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/connector/usb-connector.yaml | 3 +++
drivers/usb/common/usb-conn-gpio.c | 1 +
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
--
2.34.1
--
With best wishes
Dmitry