| Message ID | 1610720001-15300-1-git-send-email-u0084500@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] usb typec: tcpci: mt6360: Add vsafe0v support and external vbus supply control | expand |
On 1/15/21 6:13 AM, cy_huang wrote: > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > > MT6360 not support for TCPC command to control source and sink. does not > Uses external 5V vbus regulator as the vbus source control. > Use > Also adds the capability to report vsafe0v. > add So far this driver works without regulator. Unless I am missing something, this patch makes regulator support mandatory, meaning existing code will fail. I am not sure if that is appropriate/acceptable. Can we be sure that this will work for existing users of this driver ? Thanks, Guenter > Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > --- > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > index f1bd9e0..0edf4b6 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ > #include <linux/of.h> > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > #include <linux/regmap.h> > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > #include <linux/usb/tcpm.h> > > #include "tcpci.h" > @@ -36,6 +37,7 @@ struct mt6360_tcpc_info { > struct tcpci_data tdata; > struct tcpci *tcpci; > struct device *dev; > + struct regulator *vbus; > int irq; > }; > > @@ -51,6 +53,27 @@ static inline int mt6360_tcpc_write16(struct regmap *regmap, > return regmap_raw_write(regmap, reg, &val, sizeof(u16)); > } > > +static int mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *data, bool src, bool snk) > +{ > + struct mt6360_tcpc_info *mti = container_of(data, struct mt6360_tcpc_info, tdata); > + int ret; > + > + /* To correctly handle the already enabled vbus and disable its supply first */ > + if (regulator_is_enabled(mti->vbus)) { > + ret = regulator_disable(mti->vbus); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } Is it really a good idea to disable vbus if it happens to be already enabled and there is (another ?) request to enable it ? > + > + if (src) { > + ret = regulator_enable(mti->vbus); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > static int mt6360_tcpc_init(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *tdata) > { > struct regmap *regmap = tdata->regmap; > @@ -138,7 +161,13 @@ static int mt6360_tcpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (mti->irq < 0) > return mti->irq; > > + mti->vbus = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vbus"); > + if (IS_ERR(mti->vbus)) > + return PTR_ERR(mti->vbus); > + > mti->tdata.init = mt6360_tcpc_init; > + mti->tdata.set_vbus = mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus; > + mti->tdata.vbus_vsafe0v = 1; > mti->tcpci = tcpci_register_port(&pdev->dev, &mti->tdata); > if (IS_ERR(mti->tcpci)) { > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register tcpci port\n"); >
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> 於 2021年1月18日 週一 上午1:43寫道： > > On 1/15/21 6:13 AM, cy_huang wrote: > > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > > > > MT6360 not support for TCPC command to control source and sink. > > does not > Ack > > Uses external 5V vbus regulator as the vbus source control. > > > Use > Ack > > Also adds the capability to report vsafe0v. > > > add > Ack > So far this driver works without regulator. Unless I am missing something, > this patch makes regulator support mandatory, meaning existing code will fail. > I am not sure if that is appropriate/acceptable. Can we be sure that this will > work for existing users of this driver ? > Yes, I already checked all the src/snk functionality based on the latest typec code. It'll be common for our TCPC. It didn't support for TCPC command. From the recent patches, actually, I have the local change to test the src capability. But I didn't submit it. It's almost the same to add set_vbus callback. That's why I submit this change after tcpci 'set_vbus callback' is added. > Thanks, > Guenter > > > Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > > --- > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > index f1bd9e0..0edf4b6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ > > #include <linux/of.h> > > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > > #include <linux/regmap.h> > > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > > #include <linux/usb/tcpm.h> > > > > #include "tcpci.h" > > @@ -36,6 +37,7 @@ struct mt6360_tcpc_info { > > struct tcpci_data tdata; > > struct tcpci *tcpci; > > struct device *dev; > > + struct regulator *vbus; > > int irq; > > }; > > > > @@ -51,6 +53,27 @@ static inline int mt6360_tcpc_write16(struct regmap *regmap, > > return regmap_raw_write(regmap, reg, &val, sizeof(u16)); > > } > > > > +static int mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *data, bool src, bool snk) > > +{ > > + struct mt6360_tcpc_info *mti = container_of(data, struct mt6360_tcpc_info, tdata); > > + int ret; > > + > > + /* To correctly handle the already enabled vbus and disable its supply first */ > > + if (regulator_is_enabled(mti->vbus)) { > > + ret = regulator_disable(mti->vbus); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + } > > Is it really a good idea to disable vbus if it happens to be already enabled > and there is (another ?) request to enable it ? > Yes, for the state change from src_attach_wait to src_attach, It need to meet the requirement that the vbus is at vsafe0v. So to disable it first is needed. And to prevent other users from enabling/disabling external vbus regulator in any case. I think we may change regulator_get to 'regulator_get_exclusive'. From the design, 5v regulator only can be controlled via typec framework. If other user touch it, it'll affect the typec state transition. > > + > > + if (src) { > > + ret = regulator_enable(mti->vbus); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > static int mt6360_tcpc_init(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *tdata) > > { > > struct regmap *regmap = tdata->regmap; > > @@ -138,7 +161,13 @@ static int mt6360_tcpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > if (mti->irq < 0) > > return mti->irq; > > > > + mti->vbus = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vbus"); > > + if (IS_ERR(mti->vbus)) > > + return PTR_ERR(mti->vbus); > > + > > mti->tdata.init = mt6360_tcpc_init; > > + mti->tdata.set_vbus = mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus; > > + mti->tdata.vbus_vsafe0v = 1; > > mti->tcpci = tcpci_register_port(&pdev->dev, &mti->tdata); > > if (IS_ERR(mti->tcpci)) { > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register tcpci port\n"); > > >
On Sun, 2021-01-17 at 09:43 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 1/15/21 6:13 AM, cy_huang wrote: > > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > > > > MT6360 not support for TCPC command to control source and sink. > > does not > > > Uses external 5V vbus regulator as the vbus source control. > > > Use > > > Also adds the capability to report vsafe0v. > > > add > > So far this driver works without regulator. Unless I am missing something, > this patch makes regulator support mandatory, meaning existing code will fail. If don't provide vbus-supply in DTS, regulator framework will provide a dummy regulator, so the code will not fail. > I am not sure if that is appropriate/acceptable. Can we be sure that this will > work for existing users of this driver ? > > Thanks, > Guenter > > > Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > > --- > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > index f1bd9e0..0edf4b6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ > > #include <linux/of.h> > > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > > #include <linux/regmap.h> > > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > > #include <linux/usb/tcpm.h> > > > > #include "tcpci.h" > > @@ -36,6 +37,7 @@ struct mt6360_tcpc_info { > > struct tcpci_data tdata; > > struct tcpci *tcpci; > > struct device *dev; > > + struct regulator *vbus; > > int irq; > > }; > > > > @@ -51,6 +53,27 @@ static inline int mt6360_tcpc_write16(struct regmap *regmap, > > return regmap_raw_write(regmap, reg, &val, sizeof(u16)); > > } > > > > +static int mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *data, bool src, bool snk) > > +{ > > + struct mt6360_tcpc_info *mti = container_of(data, struct mt6360_tcpc_info, tdata); > > + int ret; > > + > > + /* To correctly handle the already enabled vbus and disable its supply first */ > > + if (regulator_is_enabled(mti->vbus)) { > > + ret = regulator_disable(mti->vbus); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + } > > Is it really a good idea to disable vbus if it happens to be already enabled > and there is (another ?) request to enable it ? > > > + > > + if (src) { > > + ret = regulator_enable(mti->vbus); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > static int mt6360_tcpc_init(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *tdata) > > { > > struct regmap *regmap = tdata->regmap; > > @@ -138,7 +161,13 @@ static int mt6360_tcpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > if (mti->irq < 0) > > return mti->irq; > > > > + mti->vbus = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vbus"); > > + if (IS_ERR(mti->vbus)) > > + return PTR_ERR(mti->vbus); > > + > > mti->tdata.init = mt6360_tcpc_init; > > + mti->tdata.set_vbus = mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus; > > + mti->tdata.vbus_vsafe0v = 1; > > mti->tcpci = tcpci_register_port(&pdev->dev, &mti->tdata); > > if (IS_ERR(mti->tcpci)) { > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register tcpci port\n"); > > >
On Mon, 2021-01-18 at 16:28 +0800, ChiYuan Huang wrote: > Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> 於 2021年1月18日 週一 上午1:43寫道： > > > > On 1/15/21 6:13 AM, cy_huang wrote: > > > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > > > > > > MT6360 not support for TCPC command to control source and sink. > > > > does not > > > Ack > > > Uses external 5V vbus regulator as the vbus source control. > > > > > Use > > > Ack > > > Also adds the capability to report vsafe0v. > > > > > add > > > Ack > > So far this driver works without regulator. Unless I am missing something, > > this patch makes regulator support mandatory, meaning existing code will fail. > > I am not sure if that is appropriate/acceptable. Can we be sure that this will > > work for existing users of this driver ? > > > Yes, I already checked all the src/snk functionality based on the > latest typec code. > It'll be common for our TCPC. It didn't support for TCPC command. > From the recent patches, actually, I have the local change to test the > src capability. > But I didn't submit it. It's almost the same to add set_vbus callback. > That's why I submit this change after tcpci 'set_vbus callback' is added. > > > Thanks, > > Guenter > > > > > Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > > index f1bd9e0..0edf4b6 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ > > > #include <linux/of.h> > > > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > > > #include <linux/regmap.h> > > > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > > > #include <linux/usb/tcpm.h> > > > > > > #include "tcpci.h" > > > @@ -36,6 +37,7 @@ struct mt6360_tcpc_info { > > > struct tcpci_data tdata; > > > struct tcpci *tcpci; > > > struct device *dev; > > > + struct regulator *vbus; > > > int irq; > > > }; > > > > > > @@ -51,6 +53,27 @@ static inline int mt6360_tcpc_write16(struct regmap *regmap, > > > return regmap_raw_write(regmap, reg, &val, sizeof(u16)); > > > } > > > > > > +static int mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *data, bool src, bool snk) > > > +{ > > > + struct mt6360_tcpc_info *mti = container_of(data, struct mt6360_tcpc_info, tdata); > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + /* To correctly handle the already enabled vbus and disable its supply first */ > > > + if (regulator_is_enabled(mti->vbus)) { > > > + ret = regulator_disable(mti->vbus); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + } > > > > Is it really a good idea to disable vbus if it happens to be already enabled > > and there is (another ?) request to enable it ? > > > Yes, for the state change from src_attach_wait to src_attach, > It need to meet the requirement that the vbus is at vsafe0v. > So to disable it first is needed. > And to prevent other users from enabling/disabling external vbus > regulator in any case. > I think we may change regulator_get to 'regulator_get_exclusive'. > From the design, 5v regulator only can be controlled via typec framework. > If other user touch it, it'll affect the typec state transition. How about to process the case that even switch usb controller to device mode, platform also need to keep vbus on? e.g. Iphone Carplay > > > + > > > + if (src) { > > > + ret = regulator_enable(mti->vbus); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > static int mt6360_tcpc_init(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *tdata) > > > { > > > struct regmap *regmap = tdata->regmap; > > > @@ -138,7 +161,13 @@ static int mt6360_tcpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > if (mti->irq < 0) > > > return mti->irq; > > > > > > + mti->vbus = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vbus"); > > > + if (IS_ERR(mti->vbus)) > > > + return PTR_ERR(mti->vbus); > > > + > > > mti->tdata.init = mt6360_tcpc_init; > > > + mti->tdata.set_vbus = mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus; > > > + mti->tdata.vbus_vsafe0v = 1; > > > mti->tcpci = tcpci_register_port(&pdev->dev, &mti->tdata); > > > if (IS_ERR(mti->tcpci)) { > > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register tcpci port\n"); > > > > >
Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com> 於 2021年1月19日 週二 下午3:33寫道： > > On Sun, 2021-01-17 at 09:43 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On 1/15/21 6:13 AM, cy_huang wrote: > > > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > > > > > > MT6360 not support for TCPC command to control source and sink. > > > > does not > > > > > Uses external 5V vbus regulator as the vbus source control. > > > > > Use > > > > > Also adds the capability to report vsafe0v. > > > > > add > > > > So far this driver works without regulator. Unless I am missing something, > > this patch makes regulator support mandatory, meaning existing code will fail. > If don't provide vbus-supply in DTS, regulator framework will provide a > dummy regulator, so the code will not fail. In the last reply, I will change from regulator_get to regulator_get_exclusive, it will return -ENODEV. The IS_ERR can catch this situation, no dummy regulator will be returned. And assume no vbus 5v for source & snk attached, It will cause typec state machine repeated from drp -> src_attach_wait -> src_attached -> PD_T_PS_SOURCE_on timeout. It will be stuck in the loop until snk detached. > > I am not sure if that is appropriate/acceptable. Can we be sure that this will > > work for existing users of this driver ? > > > > > Thanks, > > Guenter > > > > > Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > > index f1bd9e0..0edf4b6 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ > > > #include <linux/of.h> > > > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > > > #include <linux/regmap.h> > > > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > > > #include <linux/usb/tcpm.h> > > > > > > #include "tcpci.h" > > > @@ -36,6 +37,7 @@ struct mt6360_tcpc_info { > > > struct tcpci_data tdata; > > > struct tcpci *tcpci; > > > struct device *dev; > > > + struct regulator *vbus; > > > int irq; > > > }; > > > > > > @@ -51,6 +53,27 @@ static inline int mt6360_tcpc_write16(struct regmap *regmap, > > > return regmap_raw_write(regmap, reg, &val, sizeof(u16)); > > > } > > > > > > +static int mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *data, bool src, bool snk) > > > +{ > > > + struct mt6360_tcpc_info *mti = container_of(data, struct mt6360_tcpc_info, tdata); > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + /* To correctly handle the already enabled vbus and disable its supply first */ > > > + if (regulator_is_enabled(mti->vbus)) { > > > + ret = regulator_disable(mti->vbus); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + } > > > > Is it really a good idea to disable vbus if it happens to be already enabled > > and there is (another ?) request to enable it ? > > > > > + > > > + if (src) { > > > + ret = regulator_enable(mti->vbus); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > static int mt6360_tcpc_init(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *tdata) > > > { > > > struct regmap *regmap = tdata->regmap; > > > @@ -138,7 +161,13 @@ static int mt6360_tcpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > if (mti->irq < 0) > > > return mti->irq; > > > > > > + mti->vbus = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vbus"); > > > + if (IS_ERR(mti->vbus)) > > > + return PTR_ERR(mti->vbus); > > > + > > > mti->tdata.init = mt6360_tcpc_init; > > > + mti->tdata.set_vbus = mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus; > > > + mti->tdata.vbus_vsafe0v = 1; > > > mti->tcpci = tcpci_register_port(&pdev->dev, &mti->tdata); > > > if (IS_ERR(mti->tcpci)) { > > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register tcpci port\n"); > > > > > >
Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com> 於 2021年1月19日 週二 下午3:38寫道： > > On Mon, 2021-01-18 at 16:28 +0800, ChiYuan Huang wrote: > > Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> 於 2021年1月18日 週一 上午1:43寫道： > > > > > > On 1/15/21 6:13 AM, cy_huang wrote: > > > > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > > > > > > > > MT6360 not support for TCPC command to control source and sink. > > > > > > does not > > > > > Ack > > > > Uses external 5V vbus regulator as the vbus source control. > > > > > > > Use > > > > > Ack > > > > Also adds the capability to report vsafe0v. > > > > > > > add > > > > > Ack > > > So far this driver works without regulator. Unless I am missing something, > > > this patch makes regulator support mandatory, meaning existing code will fail. > > > I am not sure if that is appropriate/acceptable. Can we be sure that this will > > > work for existing users of this driver ? > > > > > Yes, I already checked all the src/snk functionality based on the > > latest typec code. > > It'll be common for our TCPC. It didn't support for TCPC command. > > From the recent patches, actually, I have the local change to test the > > src capability. > > But I didn't submit it. It's almost the same to add set_vbus callback. > > That's why I submit this change after tcpci 'set_vbus callback' is added. > > > > > Thanks, > > > Guenter > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > > > index f1bd9e0..0edf4b6 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ > > > > #include <linux/of.h> > > > > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > > > > #include <linux/regmap.h> > > > > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > > > > #include <linux/usb/tcpm.h> > > > > > > > > #include "tcpci.h" > > > > @@ -36,6 +37,7 @@ struct mt6360_tcpc_info { > > > > struct tcpci_data tdata; > > > > struct tcpci *tcpci; > > > > struct device *dev; > > > > + struct regulator *vbus; > > > > int irq; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > @@ -51,6 +53,27 @@ static inline int mt6360_tcpc_write16(struct regmap *regmap, > > > > return regmap_raw_write(regmap, reg, &val, sizeof(u16)); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +static int mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *data, bool src, bool snk) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct mt6360_tcpc_info *mti = container_of(data, struct mt6360_tcpc_info, tdata); > > > > + int ret; > > > > + > > > > + /* To correctly handle the already enabled vbus and disable its supply first */ > > > > + if (regulator_is_enabled(mti->vbus)) { > > > > + ret = regulator_disable(mti->vbus); > > > > + if (ret) > > > > + return ret; > > > > + } > > > > > > Is it really a good idea to disable vbus if it happens to be already enabled > > > and there is (another ?) request to enable it ? > > > > > Yes, for the state change from src_attach_wait to src_attach, > > It need to meet the requirement that the vbus is at vsafe0v. > > So to disable it first is needed. > > And to prevent other users from enabling/disabling external vbus > > regulator in any case. > > I think we may change regulator_get to 'regulator_get_exclusive'. > > From the design, 5v regulator only can be controlled via typec framework. > > If other user touch it, it'll affect the typec state transition. > How about to process the case that even switch usb controller to device > mode, platform also need to keep vbus on? e.g. Iphone Carplay > > It must be processed by USBPD data role swap. Type C only decide the initial role (SNK: power snk and ufp; SRC: power src and DFP). Only USBPD can change the power/data/vconn role individually. > > > > + > > > > + if (src) { > > > > + ret = regulator_enable(mti->vbus); > > > > + if (ret) > > > > + return ret; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + return 0; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > static int mt6360_tcpc_init(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *tdata) > > > > { > > > > struct regmap *regmap = tdata->regmap; > > > > @@ -138,7 +161,13 @@ static int mt6360_tcpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > if (mti->irq < 0) > > > > return mti->irq; > > > > > > > > + mti->vbus = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vbus"); > > > > + if (IS_ERR(mti->vbus)) > > > > + return PTR_ERR(mti->vbus); > > > > + > > > > mti->tdata.init = mt6360_tcpc_init; > > > > + mti->tdata.set_vbus = mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus; > > > > + mti->tdata.vbus_vsafe0v = 1; > > > > mti->tcpci = tcpci_register_port(&pdev->dev, &mti->tdata); > > > > if (IS_ERR(mti->tcpci)) { > > > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register tcpci port\n"); > > > > > > > >
diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c index f1bd9e0..0edf4b6 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ #include <linux/of.h> #include <linux/platform_device.h> #include <linux/regmap.h> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> #include <linux/usb/tcpm.h> #include "tcpci.h" @@ -36,6 +37,7 @@ struct mt6360_tcpc_info { struct tcpci_data tdata; struct tcpci *tcpci; struct device *dev; + struct regulator *vbus; int irq; }; @@ -51,6 +53,27 @@ static inline int mt6360_tcpc_write16(struct regmap *regmap, return regmap_raw_write(regmap, reg, &val, sizeof(u16)); } +static int mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *data, bool src, bool snk) +{ + struct mt6360_tcpc_info *mti = container_of(data, struct mt6360_tcpc_info, tdata); + int ret; + + /* To correctly handle the already enabled vbus and disable its supply first */ + if (regulator_is_enabled(mti->vbus)) { + ret = regulator_disable(mti->vbus); + if (ret) + return ret; + } + + if (src) { + ret = regulator_enable(mti->vbus); + if (ret) + return ret; + } + + return 0; +} + static int mt6360_tcpc_init(struct tcpci *tcpci, struct tcpci_data *tdata) { struct regmap *regmap = tdata->regmap; @@ -138,7 +161,13 @@ static int mt6360_tcpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) if (mti->irq < 0) return mti->irq; + mti->vbus = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vbus"); + if (IS_ERR(mti->vbus)) + return PTR_ERR(mti->vbus); + mti->tdata.init = mt6360_tcpc_init; + mti->tdata.set_vbus = mt6360_tcpc_set_vbus; + mti->tdata.vbus_vsafe0v = 1; mti->tcpci = tcpci_register_port(&pdev->dev, &mti->tdata); if (IS_ERR(mti->tcpci)) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register tcpci port\n");