[PATCH v9 0/8] Generic PHY Framework

Thu Jul 4 20:12:16 EST 2013

On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 03:25:32PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> On Thursday 04 July 2013 02:51 PM, Patel, Satish wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Balbi, Felipe
> >>Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 6:51 PM
> >>To: ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY
> >>Cc: Patel, Satish; grant.likely at linaro.org; tony at atomide.com; Balbi,
> >>Felipe; arnd at arndb.de; swarren at nvidia.com;
> >>sylvester.nawrocki at gmail.com; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; linux-
> >>omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-
> >>usb at vger.kernel.org; gregkh at linuxfoundation.org; akpm at linux-
> >>foundation.org; rob.herring at calxeda.com; rob at landley.net;
> >>linux at arm.linux.org.uk; benoit.cousson at linaro.org; mchehab at redhat.com;
> >>cesarb at cesarb.net; davem at davemloft.net; Nayak, Rajendra;
> >>shawn.guo at linaro.org; Shilimkar, Santosh; devicetree-
> >>discuss at lists.ozlabs.org; linux-doc at vger.kernel.org; Nori, Sekhar;
> >>Krishnamoorthy, Balaji T; Cherian, George
> >>Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/8] Generic PHY Framework
> >>
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 03:35:39PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I
> >>wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday 03 July 2013 03:02 PM, Patel, Satish wrote:
> >>>>Hi Kishon,
> >>>>
> >>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>From: ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY
> >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 5:17 PM
> >>>>>To: grant.likely at linaro.org; tony at atomide.com; Balbi, Felipe;
> >>ABRAHAM,
> >>>>>KISHON VIJAY; arnd at arndb.de; swarren at nvidia.com;
> >>>>>sylvester.nawrocki at gmail.com; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; linux-
> >>>>>omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-
> >>>>>usb at vger.kernel.org; gregkh at linuxfoundation.org; akpm at linux-
> >>>>>foundation.org
> >>>>>Cc: rob.herring at calxeda.com; rob at landley.net;
> >>linux at arm.linux.org.uk;
> >>>>>benoit.cousson at linaro.org; mchehab at redhat.com; cesarb at cesarb.net;
> >>>>>davem at davemloft.net; Nayak, Rajendra; shawn.guo at linaro.org;
> >>Shilimkar,
> >>>>>Santosh; devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org; linux-
> >>>>>doc at vger.kernel.org; Nori, Sekhar; Krishnamoorthy, Balaji T;
> >>Cherian,
> >>>>>George
> >>>>>Subject: [PATCH v9 0/8] Generic PHY Framework
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Added a generic PHY framework that provides a set of APIs for the
> >>PHY
> >>>>>drivers
> >>>>>to create/destroy a PHY and APIs for the PHY users to obtain a
> >>>>>reference to
> >>>>>the PHY with or without using phandle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This framework will be of use only to devices that uses external
> >>PHY
> >>>>>(PHY
> >>>>>functionality is not embedded within the controller).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The intention of creating this framework is to bring the phy
> >>drivers
> >>>>>spread
> >>>>>all over the Linux kernel to drivers/phy to increase code re-use
> >>and
> >>>>>to
> >>>>>increase code maintainability.
> >>>>
> >>>>I would like to use this framework for a smart-card controller
> >>connected to a
> >>>>smart-card phy. I have some questions and would like to get
> >>feedback on the same.
> >>>
> >>>glad to know that :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>I am using “TDA8026" Smartcard PHY from NXP. Here is the link for
> >>datasheet
> >>>>and app note for the same. The smart card controller is inside the
> >>TI SoC
> >>>>I am working with.
> >>>>
> >>>>Datasheet :
> >>>>www.nxp.com/documents/data_sheet/TDA8026.pdf?
> >>>>
> >>>>Appnote :
> >>>>http://www.nxp.com/documents/application_note/AN10724.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>>The TI SoC details are not public (yet). I can provide details to
> >>you offline.
> >>>>
> >>>>Brief about operation:
> >>>>-	The controller can work with and without a PHY
> >>>>-	When not using PHY, it is limited to talking to a single
> >>>>	smart card. There is also a need to put external de-activation
> >>logic
> >>>>	on card removal for this case.
> >>>>-	With a PHY you can use more than one smart card.
> >>>>-	Phy has 5 slots :  1 for smart card (credit/debit/other card
> >>with chip)
> >>>>       and others for SAM – SIM like modules
> >>>>- 	Once the PHY is initialized, there are some operations that the
> >>controller
> >>>>	can request of the PHY like:
> >>>>	- Card configurations  - set voltage
> >>>>	- Activation of card
> >>>>	- ATR – Answer to reset
> >>>>	- Warm reset
> >>>>	- ADPU exchange
> >>>>	- Deactivation ( Normal/Emergency)
> >>>
> >>>hmm.. We should think about extending the phy_ops to include these
> >>>operations (something like phy_smart_card_ops so that other
> >>>smart_card PHYs will also be able to use it).
> >>
> >>let's try to avoid use-case specific additions. set_voltage sounds
> >>like
> >>a regulator thing, but the regulator is controlled through the PHY. I
> >>guess it makes sense to have a generic phy_set_voltage() call since
> >>even
> >>USB can make use of that.
> >>
> >>For card activation, it sounds like phy_init()/phy_shutdown() would
> >>cover it.
> >>
> >>For warm reset perhaps a phy_reset() callback ? Although that could,
> >>easily, get abused.
> >>
> >>For deactivation, that's phy_shutdown().
> >>
> >>ATR and ADPU needs more thought, I guess.
> >>
> >>>>- 	In the mode when smartcard controller talks directly to the
> >>card without the need
> >>>>	for a PHY, all the above operations will be carried out by the
> >>controller itself
> >>>>
> >>>>My current thought process is to make the controller driver provide
> >>the user interface
> >>>>and talk to the PHY using the generic PHY framework you proposed.
> >>In the case where there
> >>>>is no PHY, my idea is to create a "dummy" PHY which uses the
> >>controller functionality itself.
> >>>
> >>>right. And in the case where you actually have a PHY, create a PHY
> >>>driver and implement the phy_smart_card_ops and register with the
> >>PHY
> >>>framework.
> >>
> >>I would try to avoid that. Otherwise we will have phy_usb_ops,
> >>phy_sata_ops, phy_network_ops, phy_pci_ops, etc etc etc. It would
> >>easily
> >>blow up.
> >>
> >
> >- I do agree with you. Creating Phy specific ops will blow up whole
> >   concept of generic phy f/w.
> >- Can we have interface like phy_setconfig - with parameter like
> >   phy_setconfig(int param, void *value)
> >	- Here param can be enum of available config parameters for
> >	  specific phy.
> >Phy can perform different operation/set internal state based on
> >param selection and value passed by.
> >	
> >e.x in case of smartcard
> >	enum set_config {
> >		SET_VOLATAGE,
> >		SET_ACTIVATE,
> >		SET_WARMRESET,
> >		SET_ATR,
> >		SET_DEACTIVE,
> >		....
> >	};
> 
> hmm.. this looks similar to ioctl and can be abused easily IMO :s

+1

What we need is to come up with generic ways to model those, if we need
set voltage, then add a phy_set_voltage() kinda thing, perhaps add
capability flags to enable/disable support fort those (just like mmc
does).

But adding something which can handle "anything" like phy_set_config(),
it's the same as adding use-case specific ops.

-- 
balbi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/attachments/20130704/5ba55a88/attachment.sig>