* Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> [160915 09:59]:
> Hi,
>
> On 15-09-16 16:43, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> [160915 07:00]:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 14-09-16 20:10, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > Commit a83e17d0f73b ("usb: musb: Improve PM runtime and phy handling
> > > > for 2430 glue layer") moved PHY enable/disable calls to happen from
> > > > omap2430_musb_enable/disable(). That broke enumeration for several
> > > > devices as PM runtime in the PHY will never enable it.
> > > >
> > > > The root cause of the problem is unpaired calls from musb_core.c to
> > > > musb_platform_enable/disable in musb_core.c as reported by
> > > > Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>.
> > > >
> > > > As musb_platform_enable/disable are being called from various functions,
> > > > let's not attempt to make them paiered immediately. This would require
> > > > fixing all the callers like musb_remove.
> > >
> > > Yeah, the sunxi glue actually has:
> > >
> > > static void sunxi_musb_enable(struct musb *musb)
> > > {
> > > struct sunxi_glue *glue = dev_get_drvdata(musb->controller->parent);
> > >
> > > glue->musb = musb;
> > >
> > > /* musb_core does not call us in a balanced manner */
> > > if (test_and_set_bit(SUNXI_MUSB_FL_ENABLED, &glue->flags))
> > > return;
> >
> > Heh we're trying to get to the "balanced manner" point hopefully soon :)
> >
> > > schedule_work(&glue->work);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void sunxi_musb_disable(struct musb *musb)
> > > {
> > > struct sunxi_glue *glue = dev_get_drvdata(musb->controller->parent);
> > >
> > > clear_bit(SUNXI_MUSB_FL_ENABLED, &glue->flags);
> > > }
> > >
> > > Note that since the glue struct is kzalloc-ed, this makes calling
> > > sunxi_musb_disable() from sunxi_musb_init() a nop, so if this
> > > needs a respin please drop the sunxi changes, they are not
> > > necessary.
> >
> > Hmm we have sunxi_musb_probe() do platform_device_register_full(),
> > then musb_probe() happens, and calls musb_init_controller().
> >
> > In musb_init_controller() we do musb_platform_init() that finally
> > calls sunxi_musb_init().
> >
> > So the sunxi glue is kzalloc'ed and initialized already in
> > sunxi_musb_probe(), and musb parts are already initialized in
> > musb_init_controller().
>
> Not really, musb_init_controller does little of interest before
> calling musb_platform_init(), which is a function pointer
> to sunxi_musb_init().
>
> > I don't quite follow what you mean how it's a nop.. Care to
> > clarify that a bit? Maybe you're thinking we're calling it from
> > sunxi_musb_probe() instead?
>
> Nope, I no the call chain, but nothing interesting happens between
> sunxi_musb_probe() and sunxi_musb_init().
OK thanks for confirming.
> > Anyways, calling sunxi_musb_disable() seems unnecessary from
> > sunxi_musb_init() because it does reset_control_deassert().
> > But that can be cleaned up later on if no other reasons for
> > changes for v4.8-rc cycle.
>
> Ah is this patch for 4.8-rc, yeah then definitely keep it as
> is, as I tried to explain in my previous mail, my remark
> was only made in case you need to respin the patch for other
> reasons, if not then it is fine as is.
OK thanks.
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
