Le jeu. 27 août 2020 à 16:25, Felipe Balbi <[email protected]> a écrit :

Hi,

Paul Cercueil <[email protected]> writes:
@@ -172,7 +172,8 @@ static int ingenic_usb_phy_init(struct usb_phy
 *phy)
                return err;
        }

  -     priv->soc_info->usb_phy_init(phy);
  +     reg = priv->soc_info->usb_phy_init(phy);
  +     writel(reg, priv->base + REG_USBPCR_OFFSET);

 not fixing any bug.

Looking at the code, the bug follows after this line. It would suffice
 to read REG_USBPCR_OFFSET in order to initialize reg. This bug fix
 could
 have been a one liner.

There's no need to re-read a register when you have the value readily
 available. It just needs to be returned from the usb_phy_init
 callbacks. But yes, it's not a one-liner.

there's a difference between making a bug fix and reworking the behavior
of the driver ;-)

The one-liner is actually what changes the behavior of the driver, since previously the code did not read back the register.

In this case I guess it's fine, because the register does not have volatile bits.

@@ -195,19 +196,15 @@ static void ingenic_usb_phy_remove(void *phy)
        usb_remove_phy(phy);
   }

  -static void jz4770_usb_phy_init(struct usb_phy *phy)
  +static u32 jz4770_usb_phy_init(struct usb_phy *phy)

 not a bug fix

   {
  -     struct jz4770_phy *priv = phy_to_jz4770_phy(phy);
  -     u32 reg;
  -
- reg = USBPCR_AVLD_REG | USBPCR_COMMONONN | USBPCR_IDPULLUP_ALWAYS
 |
  +     return USBPCR_AVLD_REG | USBPCR_COMMONONN |
 USBPCR_IDPULLUP_ALWAYS |
                USBPCR_COMPDISTUNE_DFT | USBPCR_OTGTUNE_DFT |
 USBPCR_SQRXTUNE_DFT |
                USBPCR_TXFSLSTUNE_DFT | USBPCR_TXRISETUNE_DFT |
 USBPCR_TXVREFTUNE_DFT |
                USBPCR_POR;
  -     writel(reg, priv->base + REG_USBPCR_OFFSET);

 not a bug fix

   }

  -static void jz4780_usb_phy_init(struct usb_phy *phy)
  +static u32 jz4780_usb_phy_init(struct usb_phy *phy)

 not a bug fix

  @@ -216,11 +213,10 @@ static void jz4780_usb_phy_init(struct
 usb_phy *phy)
                USBPCR1_WORD_IF_16BIT;
        writel(reg, priv->base + REG_USBPCR1_OFFSET);

  -     reg = USBPCR_TXPREEMPHTUNE | USBPCR_COMMONONN | USBPCR_POR;
  -     writel(reg, priv->base + REG_USBPCR_OFFSET);
  +     return USBPCR_TXPREEMPHTUNE | USBPCR_COMMONONN | USBPCR_POR;

 not a bug fix

   }

  -static void x1000_usb_phy_init(struct usb_phy *phy)
  +static u32 x1000_usb_phy_init(struct usb_phy *phy)

 not a bug fix

   {
        struct jz4770_phy *priv = phy_to_jz4770_phy(phy);
        u32 reg;
@@ -228,13 +224,12 @@ static void x1000_usb_phy_init(struct usb_phy
 *phy)
        reg = readl(priv->base + REG_USBPCR1_OFFSET) |
 USBPCR1_WORD_IF_16BIT;
        writel(reg, priv->base + REG_USBPCR1_OFFSET);

  -     reg = USBPCR_SQRXTUNE_DCR_20PCT | USBPCR_TXPREEMPHTUNE |
  +     return USBPCR_SQRXTUNE_DCR_20PCT | USBPCR_TXPREEMPHTUNE |
                USBPCR_TXHSXVTUNE_DCR_15MV | USBPCR_TXVREFTUNE_INC_25PPT |
                USBPCR_COMMONONN | USBPCR_POR;
  -     writel(reg, priv->base + REG_USBPCR_OFFSET);

 not a bug fix

   }

  -static void x1830_usb_phy_init(struct usb_phy *phy)
  +static u32 x1830_usb_phy_init(struct usb_phy *phy)

 not a bug fix

   {
        struct jz4770_phy *priv = phy_to_jz4770_phy(phy);
        u32 reg;
  @@ -246,9 +241,8 @@ static void x1830_usb_phy_init(struct usb_phy
 *phy)
                USBPCR1_DMPD | USBPCR1_DPPD;
        writel(reg, priv->base + REG_USBPCR1_OFFSET);

  -     reg = USBPCR_IDPULLUP_OTG | USBPCR_VBUSVLDEXT
 |      USBPCR_TXPREEMPHTUNE |
  +     return USBPCR_IDPULLUP_OTG | USBPCR_VBUSVLDEXT |
 USBPCR_TXPREEMPHTUNE |
                USBPCR_COMMONONN | USBPCR_POR;
  -     writel(reg, priv->base + REG_USBPCR_OFFSET);

 not a bug fix

Well, if you don't like my bug fix, next time wait for my Reviewed-by.

why so angry? Take a break every once in a while. Besides, someone else
already sent the oneliner before you ;-)

I'm just pissed that this patch has not been tested. I don't like sloppy work.

In any case, why should I wait for your Reviewed-by? Get maintainer
doesn't list you as the maintainer for it. Do you want to update
MAINTAINERS by any chance?

Yes, I thought I was (I'm maintainer of all Ingenic drivers), that also explains why I wasn't Cc'd for the oneliner patch you mentioned...

IIRC Zhou has a patch to move the driver to drivers/phy/, I'll add myself as maintainer once it's moved there.

-Paul


Reply via email to