From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1043757AbdDVJXq (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Apr 2017 05:23:46 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:35056 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1043682AbdDVJXm (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Apr 2017 05:23:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170421164323.GA31344@roeck-us.net> References: <68817c44-d880-581a-e9f5-12845b9215eb@gmail.com>

<20170419112323.GD24062@kuha.fi.intel.com> <20170419151401.GA14036@roeck-us.net> <20170420122417.GB4769@kuha.fi.intel.com>

<20170421164323.GA31344@roeck-us.net> From: Rajaram R Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:53:39 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 2/3] usb: USB Type-C connector class To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Badhri Jagan Sridharan , Heikki Krogerus , Oliver Neukum , Mats Karrman , Greg KH , Felipe Balbi , LKML , USB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 07:57:52PM +0530, Rajaram R wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Badhri Jagan Sridharan >> wrote: >> > Thanks for the responses :) >> > >> > So seems like we have a plan. >> > >> > In Type-C connector class the checks for TYPEC_PWR_MODE_PD >> > and pd_revision for both the port and the partner will be removed in >> > power_role_store and the data_role_store and will be delegated >> > to the low level drivers. >> >> It is important to remember what USB Type-C provide is mechanisms for >> "TRYing" to become a particular role and not guaranteeing. >> >> With what device combination do you fore see we could get the desired >> role with this change ? >> > > If the partner is not PD capable, if a preferred role is specified, > if the current cole does not match the preferred role, and if the request > is to set the role to match the preferred role, I think it is reasonable > to expect that re-establishing the connection would accomplish that if the > partner supports it. > In this context I believe we have two different inputs as follows: /sys/class/typec//supported_power_roles /sys/class/typec//preferred_role The need of preferred role is required when DRP is set in supported_power_roles option. Ideally a battery powered device will TRY to be SNK and a a/c plugged device will TRY to be SRC We need to understand which non-PD device will set to DRP? In the current ecosystem all legacy devices will sit behind adapters which either present an Rp or Rd. If it is a power adapter in 5V range can either present Rp or DRP with TRY.SRC and there is no role swap requirement. If it is a laptop port or similar with non-PD (??) DRP there is no guaranteed role swap in a non-PD mode. So we need to understand what non PD device will fit into this scenario ? > Of course, that won't change anything if the partner does not support the > desired role, but it is better than doing nothing. This is also comparable > to requesting a role change from the partner if it does support PD. All I am highlighting is that we can only TRY and there is no guaranteed role swap with Type-C > Do you have a better idea ? > If need a guaranteed role in a non-PD mode we need to set the required role in supported_power_roles. An understanding of scenario will help take better approach. > Thanks, > Guenter > >> >> > >> > TCPM code will issue hard reset in tcpm_dr_set and tcpm_pr_set if >> > current_role is not same as the preferred_role. >> > > > ... if the partner is not PD capable. > >> > I am going to make changes in my local kernel code base to start >> > making the corresponding changes in userspace. >> > Should I post-back the local kernel changes or Heikki and Geunter >> > you are planning to upload them ? >> > >> > Thanks for the support !! >> > Badhri. >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Heikki Krogerus >> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:22:47AM -0700, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >>> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 07:45:00AM -0700, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote: >> >>> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Heikki Krogerus >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> > Hi, >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:52:33AM -0700, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote: >> >>> >> >> Hi Heikki, >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> I have a question regarding the preferred_role node. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> +What: /sys/class/typec//preferred_role >> >>> >> >> +Date: March 2017 >> >>> >> >> +Contact: Heikki Krogerus >> >>> >> >> +Description: >> >>> >> >> + The user space can notify the driver about the preferred role. >> >>> >> >> + It should be handled as enabling of Try.SRC or Try.SNK, as >> >>> >> >> + defined in USB Type-C specification, in the port drivers. By >> >>> >> >> + default the preferred role should come from the platform. >> >>> >> >> + >> >>> >> >> + Valid values: source, sink, none (to remove preference) >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> What is the expected behavior when the userspace changes the >> >>> >> >> preferred_role node when the port is in connected state ? >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> 1. the state machine re-resolves the port roles right away based on >> >>> >> >> the new state machine in place ? (or) >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > No! There are separate attributes for sending role swap requests. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Right. But, that might not be helpful in cases when PD is not implemented. >> >>> >> and Implementing PD is not mandatory according the spec :/ >> >>> >> >> >>> >> FYI quoting from the Type-C specification release(page 24), >> >>> >> role swaps are not limited to devices that only support PD. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> "Two independent set of mechanisms are defined to allow a USB Type-C >> >>> >> DRP to functionally swap power and data roles. When USB PD is >> >>> >> supported, power and data role swapping is performed as a subsequent >> >>> >> step following the initial connection process. For non-PD implementations, >> >>> >> power/data role swapping can optionally be dealt with as part of the initial >> >>> >> connection process." >> >>> >> >> >>> >> But, the current interface definition actually prevents current/data role >> >>> >> swaps for non-pd devices. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> > This is correct for the attribute definition, but it is not implemented >> >>> > that way. Writing the attribute is only read-only for non-DRP ports. >> >>> >> >>> i.e. tcpm_dr_set/tcpm_pr_set at tcpm.c would return EINVAL when type >> >>> is not TYPEC_PORT_DRP, is that what you are referring to ? >> >>> >> >>> if (port->typec_caps.type != TYPEC_PORT_DRP) { >> >>> ret = -EINVAL; >> >>> goto port_unlock; >> >>> } >> >>> >> >>> I do agree that this is actually correct. I am referring to the case >> >>> where port is >> >>> dual-role-power and dual-role-data but NOT PD capable. >> >>> >> >>> > Given the standard, I would consider that to be intentional; it might >> >>> > make sense to update the description accordingly. >> >>> > >> >>> > How about implementing a mechanism in the dr_set and pr_set code in tcpm >> >>> > which would handle that situation ? Something along the line of >> >>> > >> >>> > if (!port->pd_capable && connected && current role != desired role) { >> >>> > reset_port(); >> >>> > goto done; >> >>> > } >> >>> >> >>> By "desired role" you are referring to preferred_role right ? >> >>> >> >>> If so yes, That's a good idea as well and it might work as long as >> >>> type-c connector >> >>> class allows the call to reach tcpm code :) But the current connector >> >>> class code does >> >>> not allow that because the power_role and data_role nodes are defined that way. >> >> >> >> Well, the data_role does not limit the requests from reaching the low >> >> level drivers, but.. >> >> >> >>> port->cap->pd_revision and the port->pwr_opmode check in the below code >> >>> stub have to removed/refactored to make current_role/data_role writes to >> >>> reach the tcpm code. >> >>> >> >>> +static ssize_t power_role_store(struct device *dev, >> >>> + struct device_attribute *attr, >> >>> + const char *buf, size_t size) >> >>> +{ >> >>> + struct typec_port *port = to_typec_port(dev); >> >>> + int ret = size; >> >>> + >> >>> + if (!port->cap->pd_revision) { >> >>> + dev_dbg(dev, "USB Power Delivery not supported\n"); >> >>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> >>> + } >> >>> + >> >>> + if (!port->cap->pr_set) { >> >>> + dev_dbg(dev, "power role swapping not supported\n"); >> >>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> >>> + } >> >>> + >> >>> + if (port->pwr_opmode != TYPEC_PWR_MODE_PD) { >> >>> + dev_dbg(dev, "partner unable to swap power role\n"); >> >>> + return -EIO; >> >>> + } >> >>> + >> >>> + ret = sysfs_match_string(typec_roles, buf); >> >>> + if (ret < 0) >> >>> + return ret; >> >>> + >> >>> + ret = port->cap->pr_set(port->cap, ret); >> >>> + if (ret) >> >>> + return ret; >> >>> + >> >>> + return size; >> >>> +} >> >> >> >> .. yes. The power_role_store() does indeed need to be refactored. The >> >> PD requirement should only be applied to Type-C spec versions < 1.2, >> >> or removed completely. I would be happy to leave the checks to the low >> >> level drivers. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> -- >> >> heikki >> > -- >> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in >> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html