[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v17 2/3] usb: USB Type-C connector class
On 03/10/2017 02:22 PM, Mats Karrman wrote:
> On 2017-03-08 14:58, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 11:30:54PM +0100, Mats Karrman wrote:
>>> If I read Heikki's original suggestion I understand it like the DP driver would be
>>> responsible for AM specific USB PD/VDM communication. But wouldn't that lead
>>> to a lot of code duplication since the AM protocol is the same for all drivers of
>>> a kind?
>> No that's not what I mean. I'm still mixing your PD controller with
>> something else above, sorry about that. Your PD controller driver
>> should not ideally even need to be aware of Type-C connector, right?
>> It definitely does not need to do any USB PD communication.
> Right.
>> I would imagine you have on top of the DP controller, a mux (which
>> could be a DP/USB3 PHY like on Rockchip RK3399, discrete mux like
>> Pericom PI3USB30532, or something else), and a USB Type-C PHY or USB
>> PD controller. The bus would be tying the mux to the Type-C port (PHY
>> or PD controller) and its partner (note that it does not tie the mux
>> to the DP controller). Please correct me if I'm wrong about your
>> hardware.
> No, you're correct, a discrete mux and a fusb302.
>> Assuming that is how your board roughly looks like, the driver for the
>> mux would be the driver for the DP altmode devices. That driver would
>> be the one converting things like the Attention messages notifying
>> about HPD into toggling of GPIOs, or what ever is needed on your
>> board, etc.
> OK.
>> The actual PD communication with VDMs should be considered as just the
>> protocol, so we probable should have "protocol drivers". For example
>> DP alternate mode VDMs and communication will always be the same
>> despite of the hardware. The DP alternate mode "protocol driver" would
>> then be tied to the alternate mode device for the partner, and that
>> driver could have its own hooks for what ever is needed, like HPD
>> signal handling, configuration changes, whatever. In any case,
>> hopefully making things easy and straightforward for the "mux driver",
>> _so that it does not need to care about the actual PD communication_.
> I'm digesting your and Guenter's replies and patches.
> I will try getting something up and running too soon and hopefully the foggy parts will
> dissolve. As for now I find it a lot easier to grok Guenter's drivers than to see the
> advantages and/or disadvantages of an altmode bus :-)
> @Guenter: There _is_ interest for your fusb302 driver, thank you

Ok, I'll see what I need to do to publish it.


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-11 00:42    [W:0.123 / U:0.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site