On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2014, Kevin Cernekee wrote:
>
>> These quirks are currently set through platform_data; allow DT-based SoCs
>> to use them too.
>
> It looks strange to have the platform_data version of the quirks set in
> one routine and the DT version set in a different routine. Is there
> any reason not to set all of them in ohci_platform_probe? That would
> allow us to eliminate ohci_platform_reset.
I think it is mostly for historical reasons. In Hauke's original
driver submission (commit fa3364b5a2d79), all of the platform_data
checks were in ohci_platform_reset().
Prior to commit 928fb68e2357be (make ohci-platform a separate driver)
it looks like there were some ordering dependencies involving calls to
ohci_hcd_init():
commit 2b16e39ee0a431d6cf6e6ca33bb08ec7dc82073f
Author: Florian Fainelli <florian@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Oct 8 15:11:26 2012 +0200
USB: ohci: allow platform driver to specify the number of ports
This patch modifies the ohci platform driver to accept the num_ports
parameter to be set via platform_data. Setting the number of ports must be
done after the call to ohci_hcd_init().
But that doesn't seem to be the case anymore, and in my tests with the
DT num-ports patch, I never saw ohci->num_ports getting overwritten.
Would you like me to submit another patch to move the remaining
platform_data tests from ohci_platform_reset() into
ohci_platform_probe()?
--
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
