Hi, Mathias Nyman <[email protected]> writes: > On 24.11.2016 15:33, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> Instead of always defaulting to a 256-entry array, >> we can dynamically allocate devs based on what HW >> tells us it supports. >> >> Note that we can't, yet, purge MAX_HC_SLOTS >> completely because of struct >> xhci_device_context_array reliance on it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c | 2 +- >> drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 2 +- >> drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 19 +++++++++++++++---- >> drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 2 +- >> 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c >> index 0ef16900efed..7b1b58ad6aac 100644 >> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c >> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c >> @@ -356,7 +356,7 @@ int xhci_find_slot_id_by_port(struct usb_hcd *hcd, >> struct xhci_hcd *xhci, >> enum usb_device_speed speed; >> >> slot_id = 0; >> - for (i = 0; i < MAX_HC_SLOTS; i++) { >> + for (i = 0; i < HCS_MAX_SLOTS(xhci->hcs_params1); i++) { > > Normally that is what it should look like, but as we in xhci driver don't use > xhci->devs[0], and xhci->devs[HCS_MAX_SLOTS(xhci->hcs_params1)] can be a valid > virt_device it needs a +1.
Should HCS_MAX_SLOTS() already handle that, then? > Same goes for everywhere else (also when allocating) > > This is probably originally due to that xhci hw returns a slot_id 0 for > failure, and > 1 to, including HCD_MAX_SLOTS[hcs_params1) for successful enable device > command. > > the virt_dev is then straight allocated to xhci->devs[slot_id] = kzalloc(..) > > -Mathias -- balbi
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
