Hi, On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:32 PM Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon 06 Dec 16:37 PST 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Douglas Anderson (2021-12-06 15:28:47) > [..] > > > + goto node_put; > > > + } > > > > > > - prop->name = "tx-fifo-resize"; > > > - ret = of_add_property(dwc3_np, prop); > > > > I don't understand why we can't tell dwc3 that we want to use > > tx-fifo-resize without adding a DT property. DT isn't the only way we > > could probe this qcom dwc3 device, there's also ACPI. And in dwc3 core > > where we check for this property couldn't we add a compatible check for > > qcom,dwc3 and then force the property? I see that a lot of this was > > already discussed when these patches got applied by gregkh directly[1]. > > > > When the tx-fifo-resize property was introduced I made an effort to > convince the people involved about the prospect of passing this > information in the code, rather than using DT as some sort of parameter > store to pass information between the devices. > > And I still would like us to come up with some sort of code-level > mechanism for passing some state between dwc3-qcom and the dwc3-core, > because I really want to register some callback with the core so that we > don't need to duplicate extcon and usb_role_switch in both the core and > platform glue. > > See this discussion: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/YSZCmDEedJaJyI0u@ripper/ > > > Can we revert out this bad code instead? > > > > You definitely have my vote for that! Sure. I've posted a revert up, so either the revert or ${SUBJECT} patch will fix the problem. For the revert, see: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211207094327.1.Ie3cde3443039342e2963262a4c3ac36dc2c08b30@changeid -Doug
