linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5 v12] arm: omap: usb: ehci and ohci hwmod structures for omap3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 30 Sep 2011 02:02:09 -0600 (MDT)
From:	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
To:	Keshava Munegowda <keshava_mgowda@...com>
cc:	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, balbi@...com, khilman@...com,
	b-cousson@...com, gadiyar@...com, sameo@...ux.intel.com,
	parthab@...ia.ti.com, tony@...mide.com, johnstul@...ibm.com,
	vishwanath.bs@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5 v12] arm: omap: usb: ehci and ohci hwmod structures
 for omap3

Hi

a few more comments

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Paul Walmsley wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Keshava Munegowda wrote:
> 
> > +static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if omap34xx_l4_cfg__usb_host_hs = {
> > +	.master		= &omap3xxx_l4_core_hwmod,
> > +	.slave		= &omap34xx_usb_host_hs_hwmod,
> > +	.clk		= "l4_ick",
> > +	.addr		= omap34xx_usb_host_hs_addrs,
> > +	.user		= OCP_USER_MPU | OCP_USER_SDMA,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if omap34xx_usb_host_hs__ick = {

This is missing master, slave, and addr fields.  But see the comment 
below.

> > +	.clk		= "usbhost_ick",
> > +	.user		= OCP_USER_MPU,
> > +	.flags		= OCPIF_SWSUP_IDLE,
> 
> Does this really need OCPIF_SWSUP_IDLE?  If so, then there is a hardware 
> bug, and some explanation is needed.

Could you describe why there are two struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if records 
here?  It seems to me that these should just be combined into one struct 
omap_hwmod_ocp_if record?  Looking at the clock3xxx_data.c file, the 
usbhost_ick struct clk has l4_ick as its parent, so l4_ick shouldn't need 
to be mentioned explicitly?

...

> > +static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if omap34xx_f_cfg__usb_tll_hs = {
> > +	.clk		= "usbtll_ick",
> > +	.user		= OCP_USER_MPU,
> > +	.flags		= OCPIF_SWSUP_IDLE,
> > +};
> 
> Does this really need OCPIF_SWSUP_IDLE?  If so, then there is a hardware 
> bug, and some explanation is needed.
> 
> > +
> > +static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if omap34xx_l4_cfg__usb_tll_hs = {
> > +	.master		= &omap3xxx_l4_core_hwmod,
> > +	.slave		= &omap34xx_usb_tll_hs_hwmod,
> > +	.clk		= "l4_ick",
> > +	.addr		= omap34xx_usb_tll_hs_addrs,
> > +	.user		= OCP_USER_MPU | OCP_USER_SDMA,
> > +};

Same problem here.  Seems like omap34xx_l4_cfg__usb_tll_hs and 
omap34xx_f_cfg__usb_tll_hs should be combined into one record.


- Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/