Hi,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 24.11.2016 15:33, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> Instead of always defaulting to a 256-entry array,
>> we can dynamically allocate devs based on what HW
>> tells us it supports.
>>
>> Note that we can't, yet, purge MAX_HC_SLOTS
>> completely because of struct
>> xhci_device_context_array reliance on it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c | 4 ++--
>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
>> drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 2 +-
>> 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c
>> index 0ef16900efed..7b1b58ad6aac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c
>> @@ -356,7 +356,7 @@ int xhci_find_slot_id_by_port(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct xhci_hcd *xhci,
>> enum usb_device_speed speed;
>>
>> slot_id = 0;
>> - for (i = 0; i < MAX_HC_SLOTS; i++) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < HCS_MAX_SLOTS(xhci->hcs_params1); i++) {
>
> Normally that is what it should look like, but as we in xhci driver don't use
> xhci->devs[0], and xhci->devs[HCS_MAX_SLOTS(xhci->hcs_params1)] can be a valid
> virt_device it needs a +1.
Should HCS_MAX_SLOTS() already handle that, then?
> Same goes for everywhere else (also when allocating)
>
> This is probably originally due to that xhci hw returns a slot_id 0 for failure, and
> 1 to, including HCD_MAX_SLOTS[hcs_params1) for successful enable device command.
>
> the virt_dev is then straight allocated to xhci->devs[slot_id] = kzalloc(..)
>
> -Mathias
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
