Hi, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:48:29AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> Hi, >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 02:06:20PM +0000, Peter Chen wrote: >> >> > And this no-op function is horrid. There used to be documentation in >> >> > the kernel where I could rant about this, but instead, I'll just say, >> >> > "why are people trying to work around warnings we put in the core kernel >> >> > to fix common problems? Do they think we did that just because we >> >> > wanted to be mean???" >> >> > >> >> >> >> So, like kernel doc for device_initialize said, a proper fix for dwc3 >> >> should be zeroed gadget device memory at its own driver before the >> >> gadget device register to driver core, right? >> > >> > It should get a totally different, dynamically allocated structure. >> > NEVER recycle them. >> >> then we break usage of container_of(). That's okay, but we have to add >> some sort of private_data to the gadget structure so UDC drivers can get >> their own pointers back. > > As you've probably seen by now, Peter solved this problem by storing the > private back-pointer in gadget->dev.platform_data. Cool, as long as we have a solution :-) -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
