Re: [PATCH v5] EHCI bus glue for on-chip PMC MSP USB controller

[Anoop P A <anoop.pa@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 23:04 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 09:05:33PM +0530, Anoop P.A wrote:
> > From: Anoop <paanoop1@paanoop1-desktop.(none)>
> > 
> > This patch add bus glue for USB controller commonly found in PMC-Sierra MSP71xx family of SoC's.
> > 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Anoop P A <anoop.pa@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Changes.
> > ehci-pmcmsp.c is based on latest ehci-pci.c.Addressed some stylistic issue pointed by Greg.
> > Addressed comments from Matthieu CASTET.
> 
> Could you spell that out more completely next time? 

OK 

> 
> > +config USB_EHCI_HCD_PMC_MSP
> > +	tristate "EHCI support for on-chip PMC MSP USB controller"
> 
> Better to say "EHCI support for on-chip PMC-Sierra MSP71xx USB controllers"
Ok will change that

> 
> > +	depends on USB_EHCI_HCD && MSP_HAS_USB
> > +	default y
> 
> New features always default to No.
O.k

> 
> > +#include <msp_usb.h>
> 
> Cannot find the msp_usb.h in linux-next.  Doesn't compile.
msp_usb.h has made it's way to linux-mips queue tree along with the
platform code

> 
> > +static void usb_hcd_tdi_set_mode(struct ehci_hcd *ehci)
> > +{
> > +	u8 *base;
> > +	u8 *statreg;
> > +	u8 *fiforeg;
> > +	u32 val;
> > +	struct ehci_regs *reg_base = ehci->regs;
> > +
> > +	/* get register base */
> > +	base = (u8 *)reg_base + USB_EHCI_REG_USB_MODE;
> > +	statreg = (u8 *)reg_base + USB_EHCI_REG_USB_STATUS;
> > +	fiforeg = (u8 *)reg_base + USB_EHCI_REG_USB_FIFO;
> > +
> > +	/* Disable controller mode stream */
> > +	val = ehci_readl(ehci, (u32 *)base);
> 
> It doesn't compile so I can't test this, but I think that this will
> cause a sparse warning.  "base" should have an __iomem tag.  Please
> run sparse on this driver.
Looks like mips platform build has been broken on linux-next ( unable to
configure) . However I have tested code with linux-queue tree ( mips)
and didn't see any such warnings

> 
> > +/* called after powerup, by probe or system-pm "wakeup" */
> > +static int ehci_msp_reinit(struct ehci_hcd *ehci)
> > +{
> > +	ehci_port_power(ehci, 0);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> 
> Better to make this function void.
O.K
> 
> > +}
> > +
> > +/* called during probe() after chip reset completes */
> > +static int ehci_msp_setup(struct usb_hcd *hcd)
> > +{
> > +	struct ehci_hcd		*ehci = hcd_to_ehci(hcd);
> > +	u32			temp;
> > +	int			retval;
> 
> Needs a blank line here to separate declarations from code.
O.K
> 
> > +	ehci->big_endian_mmio = 1;
> > +	ehci->big_endian_desc = 1;
> > +
> > +	ehci->caps = hcd->regs;
> > +	ehci->regs = hcd->regs +
> > +			HC_LENGTH(ehci_readl(ehci, &ehci->caps->hc_capbase));
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > +	/* data structure init */
> > +	retval = ehci_init(hcd);
> > +	if (retval)
> > +		return retval;
> > +
> > +	temp = HCS_N_CC(ehci->hcs_params) * HCS_N_PCC(ehci->hcs_params);
> > +	temp &= 0x0f;
> 
> companion HCs * ports per CC & 0xf?
> 
> What's the &= 0x0f for?  It's left out of the printk.
Code got carried forward from ehci-pci.c . Is that says ehci-pci.c is
uptodate? .  
> 
> > +	if (temp && HCS_N_PORTS(ehci->hcs_params) > temp) {
> > +		ehci_dbg(ehci, "bogus port configuration: "
> > +			"cc=%d x pcc=%d < ports=%d\n",
> > +			HCS_N_CC(ehci->hcs_params),
> > +			HCS_N_PCC(ehci->hcs_params),
> > +			HCS_N_PORTS(ehci->hcs_params));
> > +	}
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > +/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
> 
> No need for these blank comments.
O.K
> 
> > +
> > +static void msp_start_hc(struct platform_device *dev)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void msp_stop_hc(struct platform_device *dev)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> 
> I don't understand the point of these empty functions.
Will  remove it.
> 
> > +static int ehci_msp_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	struct usb_hcd *hcd = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +	struct ehci_hcd *ehci = hcd_to_ehci(hcd);
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	int rc;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +	rc = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (time_before(jiffies, ehci->next_statechange))
> > +		usleep(10000);
> 
> Is there still a usleep() function?  Either way, can you send us
> something that compiles on linux-next?
Again code got carried from ehci-pci.c .(changed msleep to usleep as
checkpatch complained about it). I am unable to compile mips targets in
linux-next tree . However this patch is tested with both linux-stable
and linux-queue tree of l-m-o

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
>