On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:06:18PM +0800, Yuan-Hsin Chen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I tried to modify fusbh200 hcd driver following ehci-platform.c. > > However, the register definition of fusbh200 is partially incompatible > > to ehci. For fusbh200, only the elements between "command" and > > "async_next" in struct ehci_regs are consistent with ehci which means What about the port_status registers? They're not between command and async_next. If they aren't consistent with EHCI, it makes things a lot more complicated. > > it would cause copious modification and duplication of ehci hcd > > driver. For example, there is no "configured_flag" register in > > fusbh200 controller, yet, ehci hcd driver accesses "configured_flag" > > in function ehci_run which would cause compile errors. Therefore, > > maybe my first patch which refers to oxu210hp-hcd is a better > > solution? > > why don't you just add a quirk flag to ehci struct so that it knows it > shouldn't access CONFIGFLAG register when that's non-existent ? > > There are only 5 uses of configured_flag in ehci-hcd.c, so it should be > easy to wrap that around a flag check. Two of those uses turn configured_flag on and two of them turn it off. However, one of the uses tests its value (the first one in ehci_resume). How would that be handled if configured_flag doesn't exist? > Alan, would you have a better idea ? Looks like this is a non-standard > EHCI implementation. Yes, it does. If all we need is to protect four or five accesses with a quirk flag, that's okay with me. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
