lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: Add binding for discrete onboard USB hubs
Hi,

thanks for providing more insights on the USB hardware!

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:24:13PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 03:20:28PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:28 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > > > There aren't 2 (or 3) devices here. There's a single USB device (a
> > > > hub) and the DT representation should reflect that.
> > >
> > > That's not completely true, though, is it?
> >
> > I was referring to the hub. I only see 1 datasheet, 1 IC and 1 block
> > diagram... Lots of devices have more than one interface though usually
> > not different speeds of the same thing.
> >
> > > As I understand it, a USB
> > > 3 port is defined as containing both a USB 2 controller and a USB 3
> > > controller. While it's one port, it's still conceptually two
> > > (separable) things. The fact that they are on the same physical chip
> > > doesn't mean that they are one thing any more than a SoC (one chip)
> > > needs to be represented by one thing in the device tree. Though, of
> > > course, I'm not the expert here, the argument that this IC is a USB 2
> > > hub, a USB 3 hub, and some control logic doesn't seem totally
> > > insane...
> >
> > Until there's a shared resource.
>
> Here's how the hardware works:
>
> A USB-3 cable contains two sets of data wires: one set running at <=
> 480 Mb/s and carrying USB-2 protocol packets, and one set running at
> >= 5000 Mb/s and carrying USB-3 protocol packets. The two sets are
> logically and physically independent and act as separate data buses.
> In fact, I believe it is possible to put one of the buses into runtime
> suspend while the other continues to operate normally.
>
> Every device attached to a USB-3 cable must use only one set of these
> wires at a time -- except for hubs. A USB-3 hub must use both sets
> and will appear to the host as two independent hubs, one on each bus.
>
> Whether you want to represent a USB-3 hub as two separate devices in
> DT is up to you. I think doing so makes sense, but I don't know very
> much about Device Tree.
>
> > > > We already have hubs in DT. See [1][2][3][4]. What's new here? Simply,
> > > > vdd-supply needs to be enabled for the hub to be enumerated. That's
> > > > not a unique problem for USB, but common for all "discoverable" buses
> > > > with MDIO being the most recent example I pointed you to. I'm not sure
> > > > what happened with the previous attempt for USB[5]. It didn't look
> > > > like there was a major issue. 'generic' power sequencing can't really
> > > > handle every case, but as long as bindings allow doing something
> > > > device specific I don't care so much. The driver side can evolve. The
> > > > DT bindings can't.
> > > >
> > > > So what should this look like? There are 2 issues here. First, how do
> > > > we represent a USB3 device if that means multiple ports. I'm not
> > > > really sure other than it needs to be defined and documented. I think
> > > > the choices are: ignore the USB3 part (USB2 is always there and what's
> > > > used for enumeration, right?) or allow multiple ports in reg.
> > >
> > > Interesting question, that one. When trying to optimize board designs
> > > we have certainly talked about separating out the USB 2 and USB 3 [1].
> > > For instance, we could take the USB 3 lines from the root hub and send
> > > them off to a high speed camera and then take the USB 2 lines and
> > > route them to a hub which then went to some low speed devices. We
> > > chickened out and didn't do this, but we believed that it would work.
> >
> > Great. :( No doubt that we'll see this at some point. Though I'd
> > assume if connectors are involved, USB3 only is not USB compliant and
> > that will ripple to all the upstream ports. I guess it could be as
> > crazy as any USB2 port and any USB3 port in one connector. One from a
> > hub and one from the root port. Though aren't there port power
> > controls which would probably prevent such craziness.
>
> A hub that attaches only to the USB-3 data wires in a cable is not USB
> compliant. A USB-2 device plugged into such a hub would not work.
>
> But ports can be wired up in weird ways. For example, it is possible
> to have the USB-3 wires from a port going directly to the host
> controller, while the USB-2 wires from the same port go through a
> USB-2 hub which is then connected to a separate host controller. (In
> fact, my office computer has just such an arrangement.)

It's not clear to me how this case would be addressed when (some of) the
handling is done in xhci-plat.c We have two host controllers now, which one
is supposed to be in charge? I guess the idea is to specify the hub only
for one of the controllers?

> > We certainly have separate host controllers as well.
> >
> > > > Do hubs
> > > > really have 2 ports for each connection?
> > >
> > > Yup. It's really two hubs.
> > >
> > > localhost ~ # lsusb -t
> > > /: Bus 02.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=xhci-hcd/1p, 5000M
> > > |__ Port 1: Dev 2, If 0, Class=Hub, Driver=hub/4p, 5000M
> > > /: Bus 01.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=xhci-hcd/1p, 480M
> > > |__ Port 1: Dev 2, If 0, Class=Hub, Driver=hub/4p, 480M
> >
> > Humm, seems we're mixing buses and ports in the numbering. The USB
>
> The "Port 1" numbers on the "Bus" lines doesn't make any sense; they
> are meaningless. If you ignore them the rest is logical.
>
> > binding says it's ports. Not sure that matters, but something to think
> > about.
> >
> > > localhost ~ # lsusb
> > > Bus 002 Device 002: ID 0bda:0411 Realtek Semiconductor Corp.
> > > Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0003 Linux Foundation 3.0 root hub
> > > Bus 001 Device 002: ID 0bda:5411 Realtek Semiconductor Corp.
> > > Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub
> > >
> > > I think this means that we're already forced to split this one device
> > > across two nodes in the device tree, right? Oh, or I guess you said
> > > we could change the binding to allow more than one port in one reg?
> > > What would that look like?
> >
> > reg = <1 2>;
> >
> > Though that's not going to work if you have 2 separate host controllers.
> >
> > I think splitting devices is the wrong approach. I think we want to
> > link USB2 and USB3 ports instead. We've already got some property to
> > do this, but at the host controller level. Called 'companion'
> > something IIRC. Probably that needs to be more flexible.
>
> The USB term is "peer" ports. That is, given a USB-3 hub (which shows
> up as one hub on the USB-3 bus and one on the USB-2 bus), port N on
> the the USB-3 incarnation of the hub is the peer of port M on the
> USB-2 incarnation (for some value of M which doesn't always have to be
> the same as N). In other words, suppose that when you plug a USB-3
> device into the hub it shows up on (logical) port N, and when you plug
> a USB-2 device into the same port on that hub it shows up on (logical)
> port M. Then ports N and M on the USB-3 and USB-2 incarnations of the
> hub are peers.
>
> To make things even more confusing, the USB-2 and USB-3 incarnations
> of a USB hub don't have to have the same number of ports! Some of the
> physical ports on the hub may be USB-2 only.
>
> > > You'd have more than one VID/PID listed in
> > > the compatible string and more than one "reg"?
> >
> > 2 compatible strings I guess.
> >
> > > > The 2nd issue is where do extra properties for a device go. That's
> > > > nothing new nor special to USB. They go with the device node. We
> > > > already went thru that with the last attempt.
> > > >
> > > > So for this case, we'd have something like this:
> > > >
> > > > usb_controller {
> > > > dr_mode = "host";
> > > > #address-cells = <1>;
> > > > #size-cells = <0>;
> > > >
> > > > hub@1 {
> > > > compatible = "usbbda,5411";
> > > > reg = <1>;
> > > > vdd-supply = <&pp3300_hub>;
> > > > };
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > This is no different than needing a reset line deasserted as the prior
> > > > attempt did.
> > >
> > > I'd believe that the above could be made to work with enough software
> > > change in the USB stack.
> >
> > I believe the prior attempt did just that.
> >
> > > Presumably we wouldn't want to actually do a
> > > full probe of the device until USB actually enumerated it, but I guess
> > > you could add some type of optional "pre-probe" step where a driver is
> > > called? So you'd call a pre-probe on whatever driver implements
> > > "usbbda,5411" and it would turn on the power supply. ...then, if the
> > > device is actually there, the normal probe would be called? I guess
> > > that'd work...
> >
> > Yes, I've been saying for some time we need a pre-probe. Or we need a
> > forced probe where the subsystem walks the DT nodes for the bus and
> > probes the devices in DT (if they're in DT, we know they are present).
> > This was the discussion only a few weeks ago for MDIO (which I think
> > concluded with they already do the latter).
>
> This is why I suggested putting the new code into the xhci-platform
> driver. That is the right place for doing these "pre-probes" of DT
> nodes for hubs attached to the host controller.

Reminder that the driver is not exclusively about powering the hub, but
also about powering it off conditionally during system suspend, depending
on what devices are connected to either of the busses. Should this also
be done in the xhci-platform driver?

Since we are talking about "pre-probes" I imagine the idea is to have a
USB device driver that implements the power on/off sequence (in pre_probe()
and handles the suspend/resume case. I already went through a variant of
this with an earlier version of the onboard_hub_driver, where suspend/resume
case was handled by the USB hub device. One of the problems with this was
that power must only be turned off after both USB hub devices have been
suspended. Some instance needs to be aware that there are two USB devices
and make the decision whether to cut the power during system suspend
or not, which is one of the reasons I ended up with the platform
driver. It's not clear to me how this would be addressed by using
"pre-probes". Potentially some of the handling could be done by
xhci-platform, but would that be really better than a dedicated driver?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-01 23:54    [W:0.196 / U:7.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site