usb: typec: Generalize mux mode names
RFC 1/7 usb: typec: Generalize mux mode names
Hi Mats,
Quoted 87 lines · Mats Karrman
Quoted 85 lines · Heikki Krogerus
Quoted 84 lines · Mats Karrman
Quoted 58 lines · Heikki Krogerus
Quoted 50 lines · Mats Karrman
Hi,
Quoted 33 lines · Heikki Krogerus
Quoted 17 lines · Mats Karrman
Hi,
Quoted 13 lines · Heikki Krogerus
Hi,
Quoted 10 lines · Mats Karrman
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Even so, when the mux driver "set" function is called, it will just get the mode argument but since the mode (
TYPEC_STATE_...) is overlapping for different AMs if I understand your proposal correctly, the mux also needs to know what AM is active.
Does this imply that the mux set function signature need to change?My plan was actually to propose we get rid of the current mux handling (just leave the orientation switch) in favour of the notifications I'm introducing with the type-c bus for the alternate modes. The current mux handling is definitely not enough, and does not work in every scenario, like also you pointed out.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
So, the mux need to subscribe to each svid:mode pair it is interested in using
typec_altmode_register_notifier()and then use those callbacks to switch the correct signals to the connector. And a driver for an off-the-shelf mux device could have the translation between svid:mode pairs and mux device specific control specified by of/acpi properties. Right?Yes. That is the plan. Would it work for you?
I think so. I'll give it a go. When about do you think you'll post the next version of your RFC? Or do you have an updated series available somewhere public?
I'll try to put together and post the next version tomorrow.
My original plan was actually to use just the notifications with the muxes, but one thing to consider with the notifications is that in practice we have to increment the ref count for the alt mode devices when ever something registers a notifier.
Quoted 8 lines
To me that does not feel ideal. The dependency should go the other way around in case of the muxes. That is why I liked the separate API and handling for the muxes felt better, as it will do just that. The mux is then a "service" that the port driver can as for, and if it gets a handle to a mux, the mux will have its ref count incremented.
So I think fixing the mux API would perhaps be better after all. Thoughts?
So, we're back to a mux API similar to the current one, where:
- the port driver and the mux driver are connected through "graph"
- alt mode driver finds its port mux using the typec class mux api
- the mux mode setting function arguments now include both svid and modeQuoted 7 lines
I like that.
One thought that popped up again is if we, somewhere down the line, will see some super device that support many different alternate modes on the same port and therefore will need to have multiple mux devices? However I think the mux api could be extended (later on) to support some aggregate mux device that manages multiple physical devices.
Quoted 7 lines
If we simply had always a mux for every alternate mode, that would not be a problem. So the port would have its own mux, and every supported alternate mode also had its own. I think that removes the need to deal with the svid:mode when using the muxes, as they are already tied to a specific alternate modes, right? With a single mux device, for example pi3usb30532, the driver just needs to register a mux for the port and separate mux for DP, but I don't think that's a huge problem.
Hmm... As an hypothetical example I have written a driver for another mux from TI and according to its data sheet:
"""
The HD3SS460 is a generic analog differential passive switch that can work for any high speed interface applications as long as it is biased at a common mode voltage range of 0-2V and has differential signaling with differential amplitude up to 1800mVpp....
"""What I am thinking is that it e.g. would be possible to use this/a mux with USBSS + 2ch DP + 2ch something else (HDMI?, ThunderBolt?, ???). The problem here is that it is a general mux device so the driver writer does not know what types of muxes to register. I guess it could also be configured using properties but that would be very complicated.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Why? All the mux driver needs to get from device properties is the SVID and the mode.
Sigh... Again, if the same mux handles signals for more than one alternate mode the driver won't know what alternate mode is intended if it only receives the connector state which use overlapping numbers for different alternate modes.
You are missing the point. We are now registering separate struct typec_mux for every alt mode. The ->set callback will need to be implemented separately for every alt mode.
So in case of TI HD3SS460, we need to initially register a struct typec_mux for DP and implement a function for the ->set callback for DP only. If we later need to support another alt mode with that mux (HDMI perhaps), we need to register second struct typec_mux and implement separate function for that alt mode alone and point the ->set callback of the second struct typec_mux to that.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 9 lines
Is there a problem providing both svid and sub-mode in the mux set call? The
Quoted 1 line
partner drivers should all know what svid they implement.
By sub-mode, what do you mean? The SVID specific connector state value you already get with the mux ->set callback. The mode index number is not very useful (with DP for example it will always be 1).
In any case, the mux driver will still need to interpret the SVID specific connector states, so what would it change if we supplied also the SVID and mode on top of that with the ->set callback?
Ditto
Thanks,