Hi Paul, > Overall this seems to be an improvement, so I have no objections. There > is a pretty high likelihood of something getting broken in the translation, > however. > > For example, this: > + hw->host_nperio_tx_fifo_size = (readl(hsotg->regs + GNPTXFSIZ) & GNPTXFSIZ_NP_TXF_DEP_MASK) << GNPTXFSIZ_NP_TXF_DEP_SHIFT; > looks like a bug (shifted the wrong direction). Yeah, I'll make sure to doublecheck the patch when it is finished. I already found the above one after I sent over the patch, but since I was just looking to collect feedback on the basic idea behind the patch, I hadn't thorougly checked it before sending it. > You probably should use u32 instead of int for the members of struct > dwc2_hw_params, otherwise you might introduce a sign bug if any of the > values get shifted into the high bit and become unexpectedly negative. And > I would use either u8, bool, or bitfields for the true/false values, to > save a little space. I don't think any of the values will exceed 2^31, but using more appropriate types makes sense. I'll see about using properly sized bitfields to minimize the memory overhead. Gr. Matthijs -- 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
