From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F10C43334 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 22:47:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232047AbiFPWrC (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2022 18:47:02 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51912 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1379190AbiFPWqf (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2022 18:46:35 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x635.google.com (mail-ej1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::635]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7BE06222E for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x635.google.com with SMTP id y19so5406185ejq.6 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:46:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BIl5tFNLrP4Cjm2iajc389o0ARniB73n3TO6sYm0FgA=; b=TqQacxtrbpgXOSC1CChdq++aBuQ+pOIi3HzWd51RZpLixwbWLPQ3cBbVnkf5zIL8Mn N8qZF8wJHDf/B8K8/4TjVeTMtcEqNZEiIMvMQV1NGcvnaePtQzc+USsdIcg7MIA06eWY hJrMAU37V7sG/wTHz8RRNNEy9JyafTk+tdF9g= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BIl5tFNLrP4Cjm2iajc389o0ARniB73n3TO6sYm0FgA=; b=bAp3XrRIjaIcxSq7O4Jq5BGxiuFG/97yjjXoiYhNKaK0icUMzOsxP8iy3Pu8GPKGrx Qyk+YOZThmZlbAFivDr/AlbUDh7nNt/Eif0mxXZ4ruan+5HN/B2WItIcBWuV2jBoI8o1 eZiQqERxMDW/FtY8offPY/jGwXRInCMxFj75jDfXsaown3mZGCeA4vAq0P4QNa1AMLdX AXl7NQFCOQGUN/3EZNpnHXLsP9cHVrLReYkLKpK0zIyDAHZ4kOlQl13FTaaXjIX6arp2 0wvsE1QSb0t/qf9QBF9ObZIvlUoxpT+g/A75xbUQO0ffhxepzId+7FKg7j4po2VTG/kE LofQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9nNzsrBHDRlINXO8uArNcvfo4LCVaL+hrf/kN5XUyCebVEoNLo m1uTmyw0yDXM2Fg94Q0jmZL2oi8u3TW7SA85fTo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tCG2brVKawxAraUs7+ituC04MmUDjnMwpF/8Vl7pbg1we2dFTtrSm/L5C0fJA6eni5rjjMAg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1d1:b0:712:c51:e673 with SMTP id 17-20020a17090601d100b007120c51e673mr6600750ejj.3.1655419590166; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-f41.google.com (mail-wm1-f41.google.com. [209.85.128.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id jy20-20020a170907763400b006fedcb78854sm1281175ejc.164.2022.06.16.15.46.28 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-f41.google.com with SMTP id z17so1465255wmi.1 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a1c:25c4:0:b0:39c:9a08:452f with SMTP id l187-20020a1c25c4000000b0039c9a08452fmr7069794wml.199.1655419588107; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220609192000.990763-1-mka@chromium.org> <20220609121838.v22.2.I7c9a1f1d6ced41dd8310e8a03da666a32364e790@changeid> In-Reply-To: From: Doug Anderson Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:46:15 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 2/3] usb: misc: Add onboard_usb_hub driver To: Matthias Kaehlcke Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alan Stern , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , Mathias Nyman , Felipe Balbi , Michal Simek , LKML , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Stephen Boyd , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Bastien Nocera , Peter Chen , Ravi Chandra Sadineni , Roger Quadros , Linux USB List , Geert Uytterhoeven , Souradeep Chowdhury Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 3:01 PM Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 02:28:38PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 2:08 PM Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 01:12:32PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 4:22 PM Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > +void onboard_hub_create_pdevs(struct usb_device *parent_hub, struct list_head *pdev_list) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + int i; > > > > > > > + struct usb_hcd *hcd = bus_to_hcd(parent_hub->bus); > > > > > > > + struct device_node *np, *npc; > > > > > > > + struct platform_device *pdev = NULL; > > > > > > > + struct pdev_list_entry *pdle; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + if (!parent_hub->dev.of_node) > > > > > > > + return; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + for (i = 1; i <= parent_hub->maxchild; i++) { > > > > > > > + np = usb_of_get_device_node(parent_hub, i); > > > > > > > + if (!np) > > > > > > > + continue; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + if (!of_is_onboard_usb_hub(np)) > > > > > > > + goto node_put; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + npc = of_parse_phandle(np, "companion-hub", 0); > > > > > > > + if (npc) { > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > > + * Hubs with companions share the same platform device. > > > > > > > + * Create the plaform device only for the hub that is > > > > > > > + * connected to the primary HCD (directly or through > > > > > > > + * other hubs). > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > + if (!usb_hcd_is_primary_hcd(hcd)) { > > > > > > > + of_node_put(npc); > > > > > > > + goto node_put; > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + pdev = of_find_device_by_node(npc); > > > > > > > + of_node_put(npc); > > > > > > > + } else { > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > > + * For root hubs this function can be called multiple times > > > > > > > + * for the same root hub node (the HCD node). Make sure only > > > > > > > + * one platform device is created for this hub. > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > + if (!parent_hub->parent && !usb_hcd_is_primary_hcd(hcd)) > > > > > > > + goto node_put; > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand the "else" case above. What case exactly are we > > > > > > handling again? This is when: > > > > > > * the hub is presumably just a 2.0 hub since there is no companion. > > > > > > * our parent is the root hub and the USB 2.0 hub we're looking at is > > > > > > not the primary > > > > > > > > > > The 'else' case can be entered for hubs connected to a root hub or to another > > > > > hub further down in the tree, but we bail out only for first level hubs. > > > > > > > > > > > ...but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me? I must have missed something... > > > > > > > > > > It's not super-obvious, this bit is important: "this function can be called > > > > > multiple times for the same root hub node". For any first level hub we only > > > > > create a pdev if this function is called on behalf of the primary HCD. That > > > > > is also true of a hub connected to the secondary HCD. We only want to create > > > > > one pdev and there is supposedly always a primary HCD. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it would be slightly clearer if the function returned before the loop > > > > > if this condition is met. > > > > > > > > I guess I'm still pretty confused. You say "For root hubs this > > > > function can be called multiple times for the same root hub node". > > > > Does that mean that the function will be called multiple times with > > > > the same "parent_hub", or something else. > > > > > > It is called with a different "parent_hub", however for root hubs the > > > DT node is the same for both root hubs (it's the DT node of the > > > controller since there are no dedicated nodes for the root hubs). > > > > > > Just to make sure this isn't the source of the confusion: the root hubs > > > are part of the USB controller, not 'external' hubs which are directly > > > connected to the controller. I call the latter 'first level hubs'. > > > > > > > Unless it's called with the same "parent_hub" then it seems like if > > > > the USB device has a device tree node and that device tree node is for > > > > a onboard_usb_hub and there's no companion node then we _always_ want > > > > to create the platform device, don't we? If it is called with the same > > > > "parent_hub" then I'm confused how your test does something different > > > > the first time the function is called vs. the 2nd. > > > > > > Let's use an adapted trogdor DT with only a USB 2.x hub as an example: > > > > > > usb_1_dwc3 { > > > dr_mode = "host"; > > > #address-cells = <1>; > > > #size-cells = <0>; > > > > > > /* 2.x hub on port 1 */ > > > usb_hub_2_x: hub@1 { > > > compatible = "usbbda,5411"; > > > reg = <1>; > > > vdd-supply = <&pp3300_hub>; > > > }; > > > }; > > > > > > 1st call: the 'parent_hub' corresponds to the USB 3.x root hub of > > > usb_1_dwc3, the DT node of the hub is 'usb_1_dwc3'. The function > > > iterates over the ports, finds usb_hub_2_x, enters the else branch > > > (no companion hub), checks that the function was called on behalf > > > of the primary controller and creates the pdev. > > > > > > 2nd call: the 'parent_hub' corresponds to the USB 2.x root hub of > > > usb_1_dwc3, the DT node of the hub is also 'usb_1_dwc3'. The function > > > iterates over the ports, finds usb_hub_2_x, enters the else branch > > > (no companion hub), sees that it is not called on behalf of the > > > primary controller and does not create a second (unnecessary) pdev. > > > > > > Is it clearer now? > > > > Ah, I get it now! Sorry for being so dense... > > No worries, it's certainly not obvious and probably my commentary could > have been clearer. > > > So like this: > > > > Root hubs (those hubs with no parent) are all created with the same > > device_node, the one for the controller itself. We don't want to > > iterate through the same children multiple times, so we bail right > > away if we're detect that `parent_hub` is a root hub and we're not on > > the primary HCD. > > yep > > > For all other cases the primary and secondary controllers have distinct > > device_nodes. > > You probably mean that all non-root hubs have distinct nodes, so for these > the function is only called once. > > > I guess in theory that test could go before the "companion-hub" test, > > though I don't see any case where it truly matters... > > Yeah, I'm still wondering whether it would be slightly less confusing to > bail before the loop (besides saving a few cycles), it would eliminate > the conflation with the 'companion-hub' check. I'm not sure how that would work, though? You'd essentially need two loops then? -Doug