On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> Now that we have completely moved from older USB-PHY drivers
> to newer GENERIC-PHY drivers for PHYs available with USB controllers
> on Exynos series of SoCs, we can remove the support for the same
> in our host drivers too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I don't see why you made your changes in this awkward way. For
instance...
> @@ -59,49 +54,39 @@ static int exynos_ehci_get_phy(struct device *dev,
> {
> struct device_node *child;
> struct phy *phy;
> - int phy_number;
> - int ret = 0;
> + int phy_num;
Why rename this variable? Wasn't the original name good enough?
> + int ret;
>
> for_each_available_child_of_node(dev->of_node, child) {
> - ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &phy_number);
> + ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &phy_num);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(dev, "Failed to parse device tree\n");
> of_node_put(child);
> return ret;
> }
>
> - if (phy_number >= PHY_NUMBER) {
> + if (phy_num >= PHY_NUMBER) {
> dev_err(dev, "Invalid number of PHYs\n");
> of_node_put(child);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - phy = devm_of_phy_get(dev, child, NULL);
> + exynos_ehci->phy[phy_num] = devm_of_phy_get(dev, child, NULL);
> + phy = exynos_ehci->phy[phy_num];
Why make two changes, resulting in more code, when you could have made
just one change?
phy = devm_of_phy_get(dev, child, NULL);
+ exynos_ehci->phy[phy_num] = phy;
Also, the patch description should mention that you are adding support
for EPROBE_DEFER.
Alan Stern
--
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
