On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 01:23:56PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 02/12/2022 13:22, Mathias Nyman wrote: > > On 1.12.2022 11.01, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022, at 09:06, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 11:13:31AM +0900, Daehwan Jung wrote: > >>>> This driver works with xhci platform driver. It needs to override > >>>> functions of xhci_plat_hc_driver. Wakelocks are used for sleep/wakeup > >>>> scenario of system. > >>> > >>> So this means that no other platform xhci driver can be supported in the > >>> same system at the same time. > >>> > >>> Which kind of makes sense as that's not anything a normal system would > >>> have, BUT it feels very odd. This whole idea of "override the platform > >>> driver" feels fragile, why not make these just real platform drivers and > >>> have the xhci platform code be a library that the other ones can use? > >>> That way you have more control overall, right? > > > > Agree that overriding the generic platform driver xhci_hc_platform_driver > > from this exynos driver is odd. > > > > But I don't understand how this works. > > Where are the hcds created and added when this xhci-exonys driver binds to > > the device? all this driver does in probe is the overriding? > > > > Am I missing something here? > > Because it is not a driver for Exynos... it's a driver for wakelocks for > their specific Android use-cases which the manufacturer ships for their > Android devices. Due to Google GKI, they try to squeeze into upstream. GKI has nothing to do with this, this is Samsung not understanding how to properly submit code upstream. Odd that it comes down to them only as this same driver is used by _many_ OEMs who have good teams that know how to upstream code properly. All the blame shouldn't be on Samsung right now (see Google's last attempt at getting USB hooks accepted for this same hardware IP block...) thanks, greg k-h
