Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com>
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
CC:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net>,
        Ravi Chandra Sadineni <ravisadineni@chromium.org>,
        "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Alexander A. Klimov" <grandmaster@al2klimov.de>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] USB: misc: Add onboard_usb_hub driver
Thread-Topic: [PATCH 2/2] USB: misc: Add onboard_usb_hub driver
Thread-Index: AQHWisa8s1Sayn6UyUeJIx1ZNmduw6lpAX4AgAAjrICAAB3x4IABEESAgACa9ICAALfHgIAAVssA
Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 00:27:29 +0000
Message-ID: <20200917002646.GA23310@b29397-desktop>
References: <20200914112716.1.I248292623d3d0f6a4f0c5bc58478ca3c0062b49a@changeid>
 <20200914112716.2.I7c9a1f1d6ced41dd8310e8a03da666a32364e790@changeid>
 <20200915025426.GA17450@b29397-desktop> <20200915050207.GF2022397@google.com>
 <AM7PR04MB715735A8A102F3EC9041EA328B200@AM7PR04MB7157.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20200915230345.GF2771744@google.com> <20200916081821.GA14376@b29397-desktop>
 <20200916191607.GB3560556@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200916191607.GB3560556@google.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4C9AD10F3DEC2B428EEDD4E9B175C5A8@eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5f9d28b8-68a9-4fe4-6f98-08d85aa0760b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Sep 2020 00:27:29.3846
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 5uBfpIwERrnq+c8gZs9psmirFldapD4Um+kOl632oywXqEkYd/YdVjunEK+bJ7Im7AM6g+aivndLBAd0ihfhiA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM6PR04MB4165
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 20-09-16 12:16:07, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>=20
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 08:19:07AM +0000, Peter Chen wrote:
> > On 20-09-15 16:03:45, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > Hi Peter,
> > >=20
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 07:05:38AM +0000, Peter Chen wrote:
> > > >  =20
> > > > > > > +	hub->cfg.power_off_in_suspend =3D
> > > > > of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "power-off-in-suspend");
> > > > > > > +	hub->cfg.wakeup_source =3D of_property_read_bool(dev->of_no=
de,
> > > > > > > +"wakeup-source");
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you really need these two properties? If the device (and its
> > > > > > children if existed) has wakeup enabled, you keep power in susp=
end,
> > > > > > otherwise, you could close it, any exceptions?
> > > > >=20
> > > > > That would work for my use case, but I'm not sure it's a universa=
lly good
> > > > > configuration.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I don't have a specific USB device in mind, but you could have a =
device that
> > > > > shouldn't lose it's context during suspend or keep operating auto=
nomously (e.g.
> > > > > a sensor with a large buffer collecting samples). Not sure if som=
ething like this
> > > > > exists in the real though.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I'm not an expert, but it seems there are USB controllers with wa=
keup support
> > > > > which is always enabled. A board with such a controller then coul=
dn't have a
> > > > > policy to power down the hub regardless of wakeup capable devices=
 being
> > > > > connected.
> > > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Whether or not it is a wakeup_source, it could get through its or i=
ts children's
> > > > /sys/../power/wakeup value, you have already used usb_wakeup_enable=
d_descendants
> > > > to know it.
> > >=20
> > > I conceptually agree, but in practice there are some conflicting deta=
ils:
> > >=20
> > > wakeup for the hubs on my system is by default disabled, yet USB wake=
up works
> > > regardless, so the flag doesn't really provide useful information. I =
guess we
> > > could still use it if there is no better way, but it doesn't seem ide=
al.
> > >=20
> > > Similar for udev->bus->controller, according to sysfs it doesn't even=
 have wakeup
> > > support. Please let me know if there is a reliable way to check if wa=
keup is
> > > enabled on the controller of a device.
> >=20
> > Then, how could your code work, you use usb_wakeup_enabled_descendants
> > to get if HUB or the descendants under the HUB has wakeup enabled?
>=20
> Doing just that would not allow to switch the hub off when wakeup enabled
> descendants are connected, which might be desirable in some configuration=
s.
>=20
> > If you use dwc3, you need to enable xhci-plat.c's wakeup entry if your
> > system needs xHCI connect/disconnect wakeup event. I have one pending
> > patch to do it:
> >=20
> > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww=
.spinics.net%2Flists%2Flinux-usb%2Fmsg199406.html&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cpete=
r.chen%40nxp.com%7C02c4cc75e26a47d0224d08d85a74f945%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd=
99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637358805725394858&amp;sdata=3DcjZhSmQiXVJoLsN5PjFACs=
LwsikH%2BeRTztPhsckJFNs%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
>=20
> Thanks, my system has indeed a dwc3(-qcom) controller, your patch adds
> the missing wakeup entry to sysfs. So it seems your patch should solve
> my problem (sharp timing!), however you mention specifically the 'xHCI
> connect/disconnect wakeup event', so I wonder if the xHCI wakeup flag
> isn't applicable to other wakeup events. I know the dwc3-qcom platform
> device has its own wakeup flag. The driver currently enables wakeup
> interrupts unconditionally, I sent a patch to change that
> (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Flore=
.kernel.org%2Fpatchwork%2Fpatch%2F1305894%2F&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cpeter.che=
n%40nxp.com%7C02c4cc75e26a47d0224d08d85a74f945%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c=
301635%7C0%7C0%7C637358805725394858&amp;sdata=3D6IjiiHJql%2FW4vzDla9q3qdfii=
OzOQy1Vk7ryUhKOOTc%3D&amp;reserved=3D0), however I now wonder
> if it should evaluate the xHCI wakeup flag instead of its own.
>=20

You may need both (glue & xhci), it depends on system design, and
usually, these two kinds of wakeup setting isn't conflict.

--=20

Thanks,
Peter Chen=