On 09/08/2016 03:28 PM, Peter Chen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:17:21PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 12:43:06 PM CEST Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 11:29:04 AM CEST Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>>> If we do that, we have to put child devices of the dwc3 devices into
>>>>>> the platform glue, and it also breaks those dwc3 devices that don't
>>>>>> have a parent driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, this is easy to fix:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (dwc->dev->parent) {
>>>>> dwc->sysdev = dwc->dev->parent;
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> dev_info(dwc->dev, "Please provide a glue layer!\n");
>>>>> dwc->sysdev = dwc->dev;
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand. Do you mean we should have an extra level of
>>>> stacking and splitting "static struct platform_driver dwc3_driver"
>>>> in two so instead of
>>>>
>>>> "qcom,dwc3" -> "snps,dwc3" (usb_bus.sysdev) -> "xhci" (usb_bus.dev)
>>>>
>>>> we do this?
>>>>
>>>> "qcom,dwc3" -> "snps,dwc3" (usb_bus.sysdev) -> "dwc3-glue" -> "xhci" (usb_bus.dev)
>>>
>>> no
>>>
>>> If we have a parent device, use that as sysdev, otherwise use self as
>>> sysdev.
>>
>> But there is often a parent device in DT, as the xhci device is
>> attached to some internal bus that gets turned into a platform_device
>> as well, so checking whether there is a parent will get the wrong
>> device node.
>
> From my point, all platform and firmware information at dwc3 are
> correct, so we don't need to change dwc3/core.c, only changing for
> xhci-plat.c is ok.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> index ed56bf9..fd57c0d 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> @@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ static int xhci_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> struct clk *clk;
> int ret;
> int irq;
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev, *sysdev;
>
> if (usb_disabled())
> return -ENODEV;
> @@ -155,6 +156,12 @@ static int xhci_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (irq < 0)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> + if (dev->parent) {
> + sysdev = dev->parent;
> + } else {
> + sysdev = dev;
> + }
> +
Shouldn't we be more careful with that?
armada-375.dtsi
soc {
compatible = "marvell,armada375-mbus", "simple-bus";
internal-regs {
compatible = "simple-bus";
usb3@58000 {
compatible = "marvell,armada-375-xhci";
reg = <0x58000 0x20000>,<0x5b880 0x80>;
interrupts = <GIC_SPI 16 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
clocks = <&gateclk 16>;
phys = <&usbcluster PHY_TYPE_USB3>;
phy-names = "usb";
status = "disabled";
};
What will be the parent dev in above case?
--
regards,
-grygorii
--
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
