Arnd,
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 May 2014 17:33:02 Andrew Bresticker wrote:
>> +
>> +int tegra_xhci_register_mbox_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&tegra_xhci_mbox_lock);
>> + ret = raw_notifier_chain_register(&tegra_xhci_mbox_notifiers, nb);
>> + mutex_unlock(&tegra_xhci_mbox_lock);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tegra_xhci_register_mbox_notifier);
>> +
>> +void tegra_xhci_unregister_mbox_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
>> +{
>> + mutex_lock(&tegra_xhci_mbox_lock);
>> + raw_notifier_chain_unregister(&tegra_xhci_mbox_notifiers, nb);
>> + mutex_unlock(&tegra_xhci_mbox_lock);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tegra_xhci_unregister_mbox_notifier);
>
> What driver would use these?
It's used by just this driver (the host) and the PHY driver (next
patch in series).
> My feeling is that if you have a mailbox that is used by multiple
> drivers, you should use a proper mailbox driver to operate them,
> and have the drivers register with that API instead of a custom one.
Ok, will do.
>> + /* Create child xhci-plat device */
>> + memset(xhci_resources, 0, sizeof(xhci_resources));
>> + res = platform_get_resource(to_platform_device(dev), IORESOURCE_IRQ, 0);
>> + if (!res) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Missing XHCI IRQ\n");
>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + xhci_resources[0].start = res->start;
>> + xhci_resources[0].end = res->end;
>> + xhci_resources[0].flags = res->flags;
>> + xhci_resources[0].name = res->name;
>> + res = platform_get_resource(to_platform_device(dev), IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>> + if (!res) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Missing XHCI registers\n");
>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + xhci_resources[1].start = res->start;
>> + xhci_resources[1].end = res->end;
>> + xhci_resources[1].flags = res->flags;
>> + xhci_resources[1].name = res->name;
>> +
>> + xhci = platform_device_alloc("xhci-hcd", PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO);
>> + if (!xhci) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to allocate XHCI host\n");
>> + ret = -ENOMEM;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>
> This does not feel appropriate at all: Rather than creating a child device,
> you should have a specific driver that hooks into functions exported
> by the xhci core. See Documentation/driver-model/design-patterns.txt
This is how DWC3, currently the only in-tree non-PCI XHCI host driver,
is structured - see drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c. The recently proposed
Armada XHCI driver [1] just adds clock support and a hook in
xhci-plat's probe() to do the platform-specific initialization.
Tegra's XHCI driver initialization is quite a bit more complicated,
mainly due to the need for external firmware and specific ordering
(e.g. firmware messages should only be enabled after the HCD is
created). I could do away with the xhci-plat sub-device and just
create a Tegra hc_driver, but it seems silly to have three XHCI
platform drivers structured in three different ways. USB folks, do
you have an opinion on how this should be done?
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/15/208
Thanks,
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
