On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 02:15:01PM -0800, Benoit Goby wrote: > Add generic access ops for controllers with a ulpi viewport register > (e.g. Chipidea/ARC based controllers). > > Signed-off-by: Benoit Goby <benoit@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/usb/otg/Kconfig | 7 +++ > drivers/usb/otg/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/usb/otg/ulpi_viewport.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/usb/ulpi.h | 5 ++ > 4 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 drivers/usb/otg/ulpi_viewport.c > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/otg/Kconfig b/drivers/usb/otg/Kconfig > index 9ffc823..02952c4 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/otg/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/usb/otg/Kconfig > @@ -49,6 +49,13 @@ config USB_ULPI > Enable this to support ULPI connected USB OTG transceivers which > are likely found on embedded boards. > > +config USB_ULPI_VIEWPORT > + bool "ULPI Viewport Access Operations" > + depends on USB_ULPI > + help > + Provides read/write operations to the ULPI phy register set for > + controllers with a viewport register (e.g. Chipidea/ARC controllers). Why would this be a Kconfig option? Why not just always have this option enabled if USB_ULPI is enabled? How will someone know to enable this or not? And you aren't allowing this to be built as a module, which suggests that you really want this always present, right? > + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along > + * with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., > + * 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. Don't include this paragraph unless you promise to keep up to date with the movements of the FSF's office for the next 40+ years. Just drop it, it's pointless and needless. > + */ > + > +#include <linux/kernel.h> > +#include <linux/usb.h> > +#include <linux/io.h> > +#include <linux/usb/otg.h> > +#include <linux/usb/ulpi.h> > + > +#define ULPI_VIEW_WAKEUP (1 << 31) > +#define ULPI_VIEW_RUN (1 << 30) > +#define ULPI_VIEW_WRITE (1 << 29) > +#define ULPI_VIEW_READ (0 << 29) > +#define ULPI_VIEW_ADDR(x) (((x) & 0xff) << 16) > +#define ULPI_VIEW_DATA_READ(x) (((x) >> 8) & 0xff) > +#define ULPI_VIEW_DATA_WRITE(x) (((x) & 0xff) << 0) > + > +static int ulpi_viewport_wait(void __iomem *view, u32 mask, u32 res) What is "res"? > +{ > + unsigned long timeout = 2000; That's not a timeout, it's a loop count, don't lie. > + > + while (timeout--) { > + if ((readl(view) & mask) == res) > + return 0; > + cpu_relax(); Ick, if you get a faster processor, you just burned through this loop faster. Make it a "real" timeout based on a time value, not just "how fast can my processor do nothing". Otherwise this code will break in 2 years and you will not know why. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html