MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1436350777-28056-1-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com>
References: <1436350777-28056-1-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:14:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL1qeaEJ9uX1vgvwO4-ABdGi5C96HZ2jBYWeKiGHJ-uqv6ooGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] USB: OTG/DRD Core functionality
From: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        peter.chen@freescale.com, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        jun.li@freescale.com, Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>,
        tony@atomide.com, Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com,
        "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1933
Lines: 54

Hi Roger,

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> wrote:
> Usage model:
> -----------
>
> - The OTG controller device is assumed to be the parent of
> the host and gadget controller. It must call usb_otg_register()
> before populating the host and gadget devices so that the OTG
> core is aware that it is an OTG device before the host & gadget
> register. The OTG controller must provide struct otg_fsm_ops *
> which will be called by the OTG core depending on OTG bus state.

I'm wondering if the requirement that the OTG controller be the parent
of the USB host/device-controllers makes sense.  For some context, I'm
working on adding dual-role support for Tegra210, specifically on a
system with USB Type-C.  On Tegra, the USB host-controller and USB
device-controller are two separate IP blocks (XUSB host and XUSB
device) with another, separate, IP block (XUSB padctl) for the USB PHY
and OTG support.  In the non-Type-C case, your OTG framework could
work well, though it's debatable as to whether or not the XUSB padctl
device should be a parent to the XUSB host/device-controller devices
(currently it isn't - it's just a PHY provider).  But in the Type-C
case, it's an off-chip embedded controller that determines the
dual-role status of the Type-C port, so the above requirement doesn't
make sense at all.

My idea was to have the OTG/DRD controller explicitly specify its host
and device controllers, so in DT, something like:

otg-controller {
    ...
    device-controller = <&usb_device>;
    host-controller = <&usb_host>;
    ...
};

usb_device: usb-device@.... {
    ...
};

usb_host: usb-host@... {
    ...
};

What do you think?

Thanks,
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/