On 10/20/2023 3:27 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 09:17:59PM +0530, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
From: Harsh Agarwal <quic_harshq@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Currently the DWC3 driver supports only single port controller
which requires at most one HS and one SS PHY.
Should that not be "at least one HS PHY and at most one SS PHY"?
No, I think it would be appropriate to say "at least one phy (HS/SS)" as
even one phy is sufficient to get things working.
But the DWC3 USB controller can be connected to multiple ports and
each port can have their own PHYs. Each port of the multiport
controller can either be HS+SS capable or HS only capable
Proper quantification of them is required to modify GUSB2PHYCFG
and GUSB3PIPECTL registers appropriately.
Add support for detecting, obtaining and configuring phy's supported
"PHYs" for consistency, no apostrophe
by a multiport controller and. Limit the max number of ports
"and." what? Looks like part of the sentence is missing? Or just drop
" and"?
supported to 4 as only SC8280 which is a quad port controller supports
s/4/four/
Just change this to
Limit support to multiport controllers with up to four ports for
now (e.g. as needed for SC8280XP).
Multiport currently.
You use capitalised "Multiport" in several places it seems. Is this an
established term for these controllers or should it just be "multiport"
or "multiple ports"?
This is an established term AFAIK. So I've been using it here like this.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309200156.CxQ3yaLY-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
Drop these two lines, as people have already suggested.
ACK.
Co-developed-by: Harsh Agarwal <quic_harshq@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Harsh Agarwal <quic_harshq@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Co-developed-by:Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thinh pointed out the problems with the above which were also reported
by checkpatch.pl.
---
Changes in v13:
Compiler issues found by kernel test robot have been fixed and tags added.
So removing maintainers reviewed-by tag as we have made a minor change
in the patch.
In general this is the right thing to do when the change in question was
non-trivial. I'm not sure that's the case here, but the robots tend to
complain about smaller (but sometimes important) things.
Got it. Will be careful about such things next time.
Regards,
Krishna,
