lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/5] Documentation: dt-bindings: Add snps,need-phy-for-wake for dwc2 USB
Hi,

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:40 AM Felipe Balbi
<felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> writes:
>
> > Some SoCs with a dwc2 USB controller may need to keep the PHY on to
> > support remote wakeup. Allow specifying this as a device tree
> > property.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > For relevant prior discussion on this patch, see:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1435017144-2971-3-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org
> >
> > I didn't make any changes from the prior version since I never found
> > out what Rob thought of my previous arguments. If folks want a
> > change, perhaps they could choose from these options:
> >
> > 1. Assume that all dwc2 hosts would like to keep their PHY on for
> > suspend if there's a USB wakeup enabled, thus we totally drop this
> > binding. This doesn't seem super great to me since I'd bet that
> > many devices that use dwc2 weren't designed for USB wakeup (they
> > may not keep enough clocks or rails on) so we might be wasting
> > power for nothing.
> > 2. Rename this property to "snps,wakeup-from-suspend-with-phy" to make
> > it more obvious that this property is intended both to document
> > that wakeup from suspend is possible and that we need the PHY for
> > said wakeup.
> > 3. Rename this property to "snps,can-wakeup-from-suspend" and assume
> > it's implicit that if we can wakeup from suspend that we need to
> > keep the PHY on. If/when someone shows that a device exists using
> > dwc2 where we can wakeup from suspend without the PHY they can add
> > a new property.
> >
> > Changes in v2: None
> >
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.txt | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> checking file Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.txt
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 37.
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 52 (offset -1 lines).
> 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED

Can you try applying this and the next two patches again? ...or let
me know that you'd like me to repost?

Thanks!

-Doug

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-02 20:43    [W:0.068 / U:26.036 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site