On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 05:17:39PM +0300, Tal Shorer wrote:
> struct ulpi_ops is defined as follows:
>
> struct ulpi_ops {
> struct device *dev;
> int (*read)(struct ulpi_ops *ops, u8 addr);
> int (*write)(struct ulpi_ops *ops, u8 addr, u8 val);
> };
>
> Upon calling ulpi_register_interface(), the struct device argument is
> put inside the struct ulpi_ops argument's dev field. Later, when
> calling the actual read()/write() operations, the struct ulpi_ops is
> passed to them and they use the stored device to access whatever
> private data they need.
>
> This means that if one wishes to reuse the same oprations for multiple
> interfaces (e.g if we have multiple instances of the same controller),
> any but the last interface registered will not operate properly (and
> the one that does work will be at the mercy of the others to not mess
> it up).
>
> I understand that barely any driver uses this bus right now, but I
> suppose it's there to be used at some point. We might as well fix the
> design here before we hit this bug.
>
> I would like to create a patch series to fix this by passing the given
> struct device directly to the operation functions via ulpi->dev.parent
> in ulpi_read() and ulpi_write(), but I'm not sure about the correct
> order of the patches that make such a series. Do I change the api and
> all users in one patch? one patch for api and one for each user?
You can not have any patch that breaks the build, so set up your
patchset that way.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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
