On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:51:53AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 03:17:18PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:23:32AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 10:22:15PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>
> > > > static int dwc3_qcom_suspend(struct dwc3_qcom *qcom, bool wakeup)
> > > > {
> > > > + struct dwc3 *dwc = platform_get_drvdata(qcom->dwc3);
> > > > u32 val;
> > > > int i, ret;
> > > >
> > > > - if (qcom->is_suspended)
> > > > + if (qcom->is_suspended || !dwc)
> > > > return 0;
> > >
> > > I think we should try to keep the layering violations confined to the
> > > helper functions. So how about amending dwc3_qcom_is_host() and check
> > > for NULL before dereferencing the xhci pointer?
> > >
> > > If the dwc3 driver hasn't probed yet, we're clearly not in host mode
> > > either...
> >
> > Well, that's what I initially did but then I reverted to this approach as
> > returning true/false from dwc3_qcom_is_host() based on the pointer availability
> > doesn't sound right.
> >
> > For example, if we return true then it implies that the driver is in host mode
> > which is logically wrong (before dwc3 probe) even though there is no impact.
>
> No, you should return false of course as we are *not* in host mode as I
> mentioned above.
>
Yes, but I interpreted it as "we are in device mode" in that case. But looking
at it again, I think it just conveys that the controller is not in host mode
only.
- Mani
> Johan
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
