Re: [PATCH v13 08/10] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add multiport controller node for SC8280

[Johan Hovold]

On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 09:18:04PM +0530, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
> Add USB and DWC3 node for tertiary port of SC8280 along with multiport
> IRQ's and phy's. This will be used as a base for SA8295P and SA8295-Ride
> platforms.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 84 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
> index cad59af7ccef..5f64f75b07db 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
> @@ -3330,6 +3330,90 @@ system-cache-controller@9200000 {
>  			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 582 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>  		};
>  
> +		usb_2: usb@a4f8800 {
> +			compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-dwc3-mp", "qcom,dwc3";

So you went with a dedicated compatible even though you are now
inferring the number of ports from the interrupts property.

Should we drop that compatible again or is there any other reason to
keep a separate one?

> +			interrupts-extended = <&pdc 127 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
> +					      <&pdc 126 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
> +					      <&pdc 129 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
> +					      <&pdc 128 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
> +					      <&pdc 131 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
> +					      <&pdc 130 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
> +					      <&pdc 133 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
> +					      <&pdc 132 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
> +					      <&pdc 16 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> +					      <&pdc 17 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> +					      <&intc GIC_SPI 130 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> +					      <&intc GIC_SPI 135 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> +					      <&intc GIC_SPI 857 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> +					      <&intc GIC_SPI 856 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> +
> +			interrupt-names = "dp_hs_phy_1", "dm_hs_phy_1",
> +					  "dp_hs_phy_2", "dm_hs_phy_2",
> +					  "dp_hs_phy_3", "dm_hs_phy_3",
> +					  "dp_hs_phy_4", "dm_hs_phy_4",
> +					  "ss_phy_1", "ss_phy_2",
> +					  "pwr_event_1",
> +					  "pwr_event_2",
> +					  "pwr_event_3",
> +					  "pwr_event_4";

The interrupt order does not match the binding, where the power event
interrupts come first.

And we probably also want the hs_phy_irqs here after fixing the
incomplete binding.

> +			usb_2_dwc3: usb@a400000 {
> +				compatible = "snps,dwc3";
> +				reg = <0 0x0a400000 0 0xcd00>;
> +				interrupts = <GIC_SPI 133 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;

I'd also like to know what that second dwc3 interrupt is for and whether
it should be defined here as well.

> +				iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x800 0x0>;
> +				phys = <&usb_2_hsphy0>, <&usb_2_qmpphy0>,
> +				       <&usb_2_hsphy1>, <&usb_2_qmpphy1>,
> +				       <&usb_2_hsphy2>,
> +				       <&usb_2_hsphy3>;
> +				phy-names = "usb2-port0", "usb3-port0",
> +					    "usb2-port1", "usb3-port1",
> +					    "usb2-port2",
> +					    "usb2-port3";
> +
> +				/*
> +				 * Multiport controllers are host only contollers, so

spelling again...

> +				 * the dr_mode can be defaulted to host irrespective of
> +				 * the platform.
> +				 */

I know someone asked you to add a comment, but I think you should drop
it again because it makes little sense in its current form.

This particular controller is always going to be host only so just set
dr_mode here. No one is going to be overriding that.

Any comment would need to be about this particular platform and not make
claims about future controllers.

> +				dr_mode = "host";
> +			};
> +		};
> +

Johan