Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016, 06:50:31 schrieb Guenter Roeck:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Heiko Stübner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Am Montag, 13. Juni 2016, 10:10:10 schrieb Frank Wang:
> >> The newer SoCs (rk3366, rk3399) take a different usb-phy IP block
> >> than rk3288 and before, and most of phy-related registers are also
> >> different from the past, so a new phy driver is required necessarily.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Wang <frank.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
[...]
> >> +static int rockchip_usb2phy_init(struct phy *phy)
> >> +{
> >> + struct rockchip_usb2phy_port *rport = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> >> + struct rockchip_usb2phy *rphy = dev_get_drvdata(phy->dev.parent);
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >>
> > if (!rport->port_cfg)
> >
> > return 0;
> >
> > Otherwise the currently empty otg-port will cause null-pointer
> > dereferences
> > when it gets assigned in the devicetree already.
>
> Not really, at least not here - that port should not have port_id set
> to USB2PHY_PORT_HOST.
>
> Does it even make sense to instantiate the otg port ? Is it going to
> do anything without port configuration ?
Ok, that would be the other option - not creating the phy in the driver.
Or from what I've seen, handling it as similar to the host-port should work
initially as well most likely, supplying the additional otg-parts later on.
[...]
> >> +static int rockchip_usb2phy_exit(struct phy *phy)
> >> +{
> >> + struct rockchip_usb2phy_port *rport = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> >> +
> >>
> > if (!rport->port_cfg)
> >
> > return 0;
>
> No access to port_cfg here ?
sorry, one copy'n'paste to many :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
