From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754193Ab3CRKT1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:19:27 -0400 Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:57131 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752905Ab3CRKTY (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:19:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:18:54 +0200 From: Felipe Balbi To: Yuan-Hsin Chen CC: , , , , , , , Yuan-Hsin Chen , Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb host: Faraday FUSBH200 HCD driver. Message-ID: <20130318101854.GQ17135@arwen.pp.htv.fi> Reply-To: References: <1360149841-2392-1-git-send-email-yuanlmm@gmail.com> <20130206163759.GB9952@arwen.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="soWJpSPh+l8Y6Fy7" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --soWJpSPh+l8Y6Fy7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, (don't top-post) On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:06:18PM +0800, Yuan-Hsin Chen wrote: > Hi, >=20 > 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 > 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. Alan, would you have a better idea ? Looks like this is a non-standard EHCI implementation. --=20 balbi --soWJpSPh+l8Y6Fy7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRRuoOAAoJEIaOsuA1yqRECV8P/32bDTwmu8ZXGSU4bLEvTs+n JkXzQcnbaPdsvHG9cmb6segdfq4LlnhI/tVeRCu3ZBtRF19KjqOz2SgOk53jOIJZ 3VAw/oG4TaZw67w8X0kMWoaDfmnE60+jgYMR91/JTuzJDlOSA06W4IB3TkjnLyFk UDSx7UHT1n29xfGXt8my4Pxkx3V8CSb3uZGrrdNVs+XSv7hvdX0KmeCKt602d/Xb 0Fo79SqcBTMEReOcnzqO5KBbg2kddkytz6A2EB9PZPTurI/bbTL+ycSVe/Ao/UG9 1d8ZEK2r2v9plunPu0TzY4t66gxglCm9oxjOvFlLIHyaA+Y1RtRyqqKFwdZCxu1T ySf9gXXTIugTazi2rT0TREODp2/fcKAAQ1afZoVwzjFKhpkswHJ4qLaDB78q4Twk EJ+GZj+DkdooWqxVmuC+9FZDhr/9AV3vJPM0Oh0+KgVaiF1w75UrOK5yu72+zLK4 +Fs2R2cPn29trxs8UKSWT9X4KF3EphopNZbH2YcmteLbPOn5dAlcUWaS5RAfIrUL ldHP9pPYT8KsFT+DwGN/JTV5gkgaST4iHDtaftn6FWqLVEldqBqtIAlI2MEA3DRg xLashtbHh72IMWtnkYg+GDeOs7H2reLYt/pi/3+35HMWe95AKxLGUEiGy7pZ5bro Ke24qVPreGcRz4VOUm7X =vGzx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --soWJpSPh+l8Y6Fy7--