[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] extcon: usb-gpio: add support for VBUS detection
On 04/10/2015 10:10 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> On 04/10/2015 04:45 PM, Robert Baldyga wrote:
>> On 04/10/2015 09:17 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>> Hi Robert,
>>> On 04/09/2015 06:24 PM, Robert Baldyga wrote:
>>>> Hi Chanwoo,
>>>> On 04/09/2015 11:07 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>> On 04/09/2015 04:57 PM, Robert Baldyga wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Chanwoo,
>>>>>> On 04/09/2015 04:12 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> But, I have one question about case[3]
>>>>>>> If id is low and vbus is high, this patch will update the state of both USB and USB-HOST cable as attached state.
>>>>>>> Is it possible that two different cables (both USB and USB-HOST) are connected to one port simultaneously?
>>>>>> It's because state of single USB cable connection cannot be completely
>>>>>> described using single extcon cable. USB cable state has two bits (VBUS
>>>>>> and ID), so we need to use two cables for single cable connection. We
>>>>>> use following convention:
>>>>>> cable "USB" = VBUS
>>>>>> cable "USB-HOST" = !ID.
>>>>> I think that extcon provider driver have to update the only one cable state
>>>>> of either USB or USB-HOST because USB and USB-HOST feature can not be used
>>>>> at the same time through one h/w port.
>>>>> If extcon-usb-gpio.c update two connected event of both USB and USB-HOST cable
>>>>> at the same time, the extcon consumer driver can not decide what handle either USB or USB-HOST.
>>>> It can. USB OTG allows for that. Moreover device can be host even if
>>>> ID=1 (so detected cable type is USB device), or peripheral when ID=0 (so
>>>> detected cable type is USB host). Devices would need to have complete
>>>> information about USB cable connection, because OTG state machine needs
>>> As I knew, USB OTG port don't send the attached cable of both USB and USB-HOST
>>> at the same time. The case3 in your patch update two cable state about one h/w port.
>> It's because simple "USB" or "USB-HOST" means nothing for USB OTG
>> machine. It needs to know exact VBUS and ID states, which cannot be
>> concluded basing on cable type only. That's why I have used "USB-HOST"
>> name together with "USB" to pass additional information about USB cable
>> connection.
> I think this method is not proper to support this case.
> It may cause the confusion about other case using USB/USB-HOST cable state
> except of you commented case.

That's why I finally proposed to use "USB-ID" and "USB-VBUS" in parallel
with old names. It seems to be simpler solution than adding new
mechanism notifying about VBUS and ID states changes.

>>> I don't agree.
>>>> that. As I wrote, current USB cable names are misleading. It would be
>>>> better to have "USB-VBUS" and "USB-ID".
>>> It is strange cable name. I prefer to use only 'USB' cable name.
>>> But, we could support the other method to get the state of whether USB-VBUS or USB-ID
>>> by using helper API or others.
>> Ok, so do you have any idea how to do it? Do we want to supply
>> additional API for notifying about VBUS and ID changes?
> No, we need to consider more standard solution to support this case.

Robert Baldyga

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-10 11:21    [W:0.099 / U:1.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site