Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: chrome: Add cros-ec-typec mux props

[Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>]

Hi Rob,

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:53 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:34 AM Heikki Krogerus
> <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 04:57:40PM -0700, Prashant Malani wrote:
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > Thanks again for the comments and feedback. Kindly see responses inline:
> > >
> > > (Trimming unrelated text from thread):
> > >
> > >
> > >             ports {
> > >                 #address-cells = <1>;
> > >                 #size-cells = <0>;
> > >
> > >                 port@0 {
> > >                     reg = <0>;
> > >                     usb_con_hs: endpoint {
> > >                         remote-endpoint = <&foo_usb_hs_controller>;
> > >                     };
> > >                 };
> > >
> > >                 port@1 {
> > >                     reg = <1>;
> > >                     usb_con0_ss: endpoint@0 {
> > >                         remote-endpoint = <&mode_mux_in>;
> > >                     };
> > >                 };
> > >
> > >                 port@2 {
> > >                     reg = <2>;
> > >                     usb_con_sbu: endpoint {
> > >                         remote-endpoint = <&foo_dp_aux>;
> > >                     };
> > >                 };
> > >             };
> >
> > The pins that can be reassigned can in practice go anywhere. We can't
> > group them in any way. What do we do for example when the two sideband
> > pins go to different locations?
>
> The sideband pins from the connector go to multiple places or the
> sideband signal from a controller go to multiple connectors? Either
> way, that's solved with multiple endpoints. In the former case, port@2
> would have multiple endpoints with all the possible connections. The
> general model of the graph is each port is a separate data channel and
> multiple endpoints are either a mux or fanout depending on the data
> direction.
>
> > It looks like the OF graph for the USB Type-C connectors expects the
> > pins to be grouped like that, which is too bad, because unfortunately
> > it will not work. It would require that we have a separate port for
> > every pin that can be reassigned on the connector, and let's not even
> > consider that.
>
> I guess you are referring to the 4 SS signal pairs and that they could
> be 2 USB links, 1 USB link and 1-2 Alt mode links, or 4 Alt mode
> links. I think the grouping of SS signals is fine as I'd expect
> there's a single entity deciding the routing. That would be 'mux' node
> I think, but 'mux' is the wrong abstraction here. I guess we could
> have 4 muxes (1 for each signal), but I'd hope we don't need that
> level of detail in DT. I think we're in agreement on that.

I think the updated example handles this grouping (port@1 going to a
"SS mux") although as you said it should probably be a group of muxes,
but I think the example illustrates the point. Is that assessment
correct?

>
> > We need higher level description of the connections for the USB Type-C
> > connectors. For example, a connector can be connected to this (or
> > these) DisplayPort(s), this USB 2.0 port, this USB 3.x port, this USB4
> > port, etc. And this is the mux that handles the pins on this
> > connector, and these are the retimers, etc. etc.
> >
> > We also need a way to identify those connections, and relying on
> > something like fixed port node addresses, so indexes in practice,
> > feels really risky to me. A conflict may seem unlikely now, but we
> > seen those so many times in the past other things like GPIOs, IRQs,
> > etc. We really need to define string identifiers for these
> > connections.
>
> I assume for IRQs you are referring to cases where we have a variable
> number such as 'interrupts = <1 2 3>;' where 'interrupts = <1 3>'
> doesn't work because we can't describe interrupt 2 is not present? The
> graph binding doesn't suffer from that issue since we can easily omit
> port or endpoint nodes.
>
> Also, the numbering is specific to a compatible string. If we need
> different numbering, then we can do a new compatible.
>
> Rob

Would this block the addition of the "*-switch" properties? IIUC the
two are related but not dependent on each other.

The *-switch properties are phandles which the Type C connector class
framework expects (and uses to get handles to those switches).
These would point to the "mux" or "group of mux" abstractions as noted earlier.

I'd suggest we work on updating the Type C connector class to a model
that can describe connections for both DT (using OF graph) and ACPI,
if something
like that exists, but let it not block the addition of these switches
to usb-connector.yaml; they will be needed by the Type C connector
class framework
regardless of the form the connection description takes.

Best regards,