On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 04:38:54PM +0800, Ray Chi wrote:
> In general, xHCI didn't do anything for port initialization. However,
> there are some requirement or limitation on various platforms, so
> vendors need to do some error handlings if the device connected to a
> broken USB accessory.
>
> This patch also add the hook to xhci_driver_overrides so that vendors
> can add their specific protection easily if needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ray Chi <raychi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
> index 65858f607437..f237af9d6e2e 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
> @@ -4358,6 +4358,20 @@ static int xhci_enable_device(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct usb_device *udev)
> return xhci_setup_device(hcd, udev, SETUP_CONTEXT_ONLY);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * The function could get the status of port initialization.
> + */
> +static int xhci_check_init_status(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct usb_device *udev, int r)
> +{
> + /*
> + * In general, this function is not necessory. Some platforms may
> + * need doing error handling when the port initialization takes a
> + * long time to do. The device can use the override callback to
> + * do specific handlings.
> + */
> + return 0;
> +}
For obvious technical and legal reasons, we are not allowed to add
"hooks" to the kernel where there are no in-kernel users. Nor would you
want us to do so.
So I really do not understand this patch series at all.
What driver wants to do odd things here? What needs to happen that the
in-tree drivers are not doing properly? Why not get the needed fixes in
the in-kernel drivers instead of trying to add random hooks that some
out-of-tree code would use instead.
confused,
greg k-h
