From: "Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] dt-bindings: usb: add non-removable device property
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:34:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yw1x4l8nvmu6.fsf@mansr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190228155241.GC12050@kroah.com> (Greg Kroah-Hartman's message of "Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:52:41 +0100")
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 03:22:24PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 02:33:44PM +0000, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> >> Add a boolean property indicating that a device is hardwired to the
>> >> upstream port. Although hubs can provide this information, they are not
>> >> always configured correctly. An alternate means of indicating this for
>> >> built-in USB devices is thus useful.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <mans@mansr.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> I have a situation where userspace would like to know which USB devices
>> >> are built-in, but the on-board hub doesn't have the right setting.
>> >> Also, the hub itself can't be indicated as fixed in any other way that
>> >> I'm aware of.
>> >
>> > Then that's a firmware bug, right? We have a way for firmware to export
>> > this to the USB core, why not use that? Your on-board hub should get a
>> > firmware update with this information, let's not try to create
>> > yet-another-way to define this type of information please.
>>
>> What firmware? This is not an ACPI system, obviously, so DT _is_ the
>> firmware.
>
> Firmware in your hub. There's a whole crazy software stack in that
> beast :)
The hub chip itself (SMSC/Microchip USB2512B in the case at hand) is
fine. The problem is that whoever designed the PCB didn't add the
pull-ups marking the ports non-removable. Besides, the hub can't
indicate that it itself is hardwired to the host port. That information
needs to be supplied elsewhere.
>> >> In a way, adding this property seems a bit silly since dt can only
>> >> sensibly be used for hardwired devices in the first place. Thus the
>> >> mere presence of a dt node could be taken to indicate the same thing.
>> >> On the other hand, it's conceivable that someone might dynamically
>> >> generate a devicetree based on what happens to be connected on boot or
>> >> something. For that reason, and explicit property seems safer.
>> >> ---
>> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-device.txt | 8 ++++++++
>> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > Can you show some code actually using this? Again, this should "just
>> > work" for USB today unless your platform is really broken (and if it is,
>> > go complain to the vendor...)
>>
>> You know full well that complaining to the vendor is rarely something
>> that works. Especially not when there are already thousands of the
>> devices in the field.
>
> Understood, but constantly working around broken hardware is annoying at
> times.
It's annoying, sure. It is also the reality, and we have to deal with it.
Ignoring such hardware won't make it go away.
>> This is how I meant to use it:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
>> index 3adff4da2ee1..81ef3cb705b7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
>> @@ -2392,6 +2392,14 @@ static void set_usb_port_removable(struct usb_device *udev)
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Otherwise, check whether DT indicates this device is non-removable.
>> + */
>> + if (of_property_read_bool(udev->dev.of_node, "non-removable")) {
>> + udev->removable = USB_DEVICE_FIXED;
>> + return;
>> + }
>
> Shouldn't this be an attribute of the USB hub's port, not the device
> itself? That's the way it works with ACPI, and odds are any description
> of USB devices in DT is also going to look much like how ACPI describes
> the devices, let's not try to diverge when it is not necessary.
Fine with me. That's why I asked.
How about a non-removable-ports property in the hub node listing the
hardwired ports?
--
Måns Rullgård
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-28 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-28 14:33 [RFC][PATCH] dt-bindings: usb: add non-removable device property Mans Rullgard
2019-02-28 15:13 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-28 15:22 ` Måns Rullgård
2019-02-28 15:52 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-28 17:34 ` Måns Rullgård [this message]
2019-02-28 18:06 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=yw1x4l8nvmu6.fsf@mansr.com \
--to=mans@mansr.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).