On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 11:09:41PM +0100, Darren Stevens wrote:
> In patch a1a2b7125e1079 (Drop static setup of IRQ resource from DT
> core) we stopped platform_get_resource() from returning the IRQ, as all
> drivers were supposed to have switched to platform_get_irq()
> Unfortunately the Freescale EHCI driver in host mode got missed. Fix
> it. Also fix allocation of resources to work with current kernel.
>
> Fixes:a1a2b7125e1079 (Drop static setup of IRQ resource from DT core)
Nit, please put a space after the :.
Also not that many characters are needed, as you can see in our
documentation, this is the proper format:
Fixes: a1a2b7125e10 ("of/platform: Drop static setup of IRQ resource from DT core")
> Reported-by Christian Zigotzky <chzigotzky@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by Darren Stevens <darren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Tested on AmigaOne X5000/20 and X5000/40 not sure if this is entirely
> correct fix though. Contains code by Rob Herring (in fsl-mph-dr-of.c)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c
> index 385be30..d0bf7fb 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/fsl_devices.h>
> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
>
> #include "ehci.h"
> @@ -46,9 +47,10 @@ static struct hc_driver __read_mostly
> fsl_ehci_hc_driver; */
> static int fsl_ehci_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> + struct device_node *dn = pdev->dev.of_node;
> struct fsl_usb2_platform_data *pdata;
> struct usb_hcd *hcd;
> - struct resource *res;
> + struct resource res;
> int irq;
> int retval;
> u32 tmp;
> @@ -76,14 +78,10 @@ static int fsl_ehci_drv_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev) return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> - res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, 0);
> - if (!res) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> - "Found HC with no IRQ. Check %s setup!\n",
> - dev_name(&pdev->dev));
> - return -ENODEV;
> + irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> + if (irq < 0) {
> + return irq;
> }
Did you run checkpatch on this? Coding style is not correct :(
thanks,
greg k-h
