On Fri, 8 May 2020, Al Cooper wrote: A few minor typos in the patch description:
> Add a new EHCI driver for Broadcom STB SoC's. A new EHCI driver > was created instead of adding support to the existing ehci platform > driver because of the code required to workaround bugs in the EHCI -----------------------------------------^ "workaround" is a noun; the verb form is "work around". > controller. The primary workround is for a bug where the Core -----------------------------^ Missing "a". > violates the SOF interval between the first two SOFs transmitted after > resume. This only happens if the resume occurs near the end of a > microframe. The fix is to intercept the echi-hcd request to complete -------------------------------------------^ ehci, not echi. > RESUME and align it to the start of the next microframe. > > Signed-off-by: Al Cooper <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> > --- Basically this new driver is fine. However... > +static inline void ehci_brcm_wait_for_sof(struct ehci_hcd *ehci, u32 delay) > +{ > + u32 frame_idx = ehci_readl(ehci, &ehci->regs->frame_index); > + u32 val; > + int res; > + > + /* Wait for next microframe (every 125 usecs) */ > + res = readl_relaxed_poll_timeout(&ehci->regs->frame_index, val, > + val != frame_idx, 1, 130); > + if (res) > + dev_err(ehci_to_hcd(ehci)->self.controller, > + "Error waiting for SOF\n"); If this patch is going to be redone anyway, you might as well change dev_err() to ehci_err() -- that's what it's for. I should have noticed this earlier, sorry. > +static int ehci_brcm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > +{ > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > + struct resource *res_mem; > + struct brcm_priv *priv; > + struct usb_hcd *hcd; > + int irq; > + int err; > + > + err = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32)); > + if (err) > + return err; > + > + irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > + if (irq <= 0) > + return irq; I don't want to get involved in the question of whether or not 0 is a valid IRQ number. The consensus has gone back and forth over the years, and it just doesn't seem important. However, as Sergei points out, if 0 is going to be regarded as an invalid value then we shouldn't return 0 from the probe function here. I'll leave the decision on how to handle this matter up to Greg. :-) Alan Stern
