> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/chipidea/host.c b/drivers/usb/chipidea/host.c
> > > index 053bac9..55120ef 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/chipidea/host.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/chipidea/host.c
> > > @@ -109,15 +109,25 @@ static int host_start(struct ci_hdrc *ci)
> > > struct ehci_hcd *ehci;
> > > struct ehci_ci_priv *priv;
> > > int ret;
> > > + struct device *dev = ci->dev;
> > >
> > > - if (usb_disabled())
> > > + if (usb_disabled() || !dev)
> > > return -ENODEV;
> > >
> > > - hcd = usb_create_hcd(&ci_ehci_hc_driver, ci->dev, dev_name(ci->dev));
> > > + /*
> > > + * USB Core will try to get child node under roothub,
> > > + * but chipidea core has no of_node, and the child node
> > > + * for controller is located at glue layer's node which
> > > + * is chipidea core's parent.
> > > + */
> > > + if (dev->parent && dev->parent->of_node)
> > > + dev->of_node = dev->parent->of_node;
> >
> > Is this a good idea? Two devices with the same of_node?
> >
>
> This is only for chipidea driver whose host controller device
> doesn't have entry at dts, but other host controller driver which
> supports device tree should have its entry at dts.
>
> > I know the networking code assumes of_node values are unique, and uses
> > it to find a device. Are you 100% sure the USB code does not make this
> > assumption.
> >
>
> The controller device is the root for USB device, the common
> USB code will not touch its glue layer device (controller's parent).
I'm just thinking about code like:
of_find_spi_master_by_node(), of_find_net_device_by_node(),
of_find_backlight_by_node(), etc.
If somebody was to implement an of_find_usb_host_by_node() are you
100% sure the right node will be found? This seems like a bug waiting
to happen.
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
