Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: eud: Add per-path child nodes for UTMI routing
Elson Serrao <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-usb,org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/7/2026 6:52 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 09:20:26AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 02, 2026 at 08:15:26PM -0700, Elson Serrao wrote: >>> The Qualcomm Embedded USB Debugger (EUD) can intercept one or two >>> High-Speed UTMI paths depending on the SoC. For example, SC7280 supports >>> EUD on the primary UTMI path only, while SM8350 supports EUD on both >>> primary and secondary UTMI paths. >>> >>> Each UTMI path connects an independent USB controller/connector pair and >>> forms its own role-switch domain. EUD routes traffic based on USB role. >>> In device role the debug hub is inserted, while in host role it is >>> bypassed. >>> >>> The existing binding models EUD using a flattened ports representation. >>> While sufficient for fixed device-role configurations, it cannot naturally >>> associate a controller, connector, and role switch with a specific >>> EUD-routable path. This is problematic for role-switch capable ports and >>> becomes more pronounced on SoCs with multiple paths. In such cases, each >>> path forms an independent role-switch domain and requires per-path role >>> awareness. >>> >>> Model each UTMI path as a separate child node with its own OF graph. Add >>> an SM8350 compatible for dual-path EUD topologies while retaining the >>> legacy ports representation for backward compatibility. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Elson Serrao <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml | 128 +++++++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 127 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> > > sashiko correctly points out the oneOf logic is flawed. > Thanks Rob and Krzysztof for the review. I'll address this in v6 by making the two representations in oneOF section mutually exclusive. Thanks Elson