linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/16] usb: musb: dsps: rename ti81xx_driver_data to am33xx_driver

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:	Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:12:34 -0500
From:	Bin Liu <binmlist@...il.com>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	balbi@...com, george.cherian@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] usb: musb: dsps: rename ti81xx_driver_data to am33xx_driver_data

Sebastian,

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> * Bin Liu | 2013-07-23 13:23:57 [-0500]:
>
>>Hi Sebastian,
> Hi Liu,
>
>>On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <
>>bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>
>>> This patch renames the type struct from ti81xx_driver_data to
>>> am33xx_driver_data since it is not used for ti81xx anymore. The EOI
>>> member is also removed since the am33xx SoC does not have such register.
>>> The interrupt is acknowledged by writting into the stat register.
>>>
>>I guess the EOI register is removed from the TRM because AM33xx does not
>>use it, there is no need to write to it to acknowledge. It does not hurt to
>>write to it though since the register still exists, it just does nothing, I
>>guess.
>
> Is it really there or was it never there and it has been added to TRM by
> accident?
The EOI register IS in the USB subsystem of AM33xx, but the SoC does
not use it because it uses level triggering for USB interrupt.

>
>>But I am not sure if it is a good idea to remove eoi from the musb_dsps
>>driver. If the intension is to merge the support for other SoC, such as
>>AM35xx, AM18xx, then EOI handling might be still needed. I just don't know
>>how those devices use EOI.
>
> If one of the architectures gets added which need an EOI then the offset
> can be 0 and the EOI will happen only if it is != 0.
This patch cleaned up the use of EOI. Do you mean EOI handling will be
added back with condition EOI offset != 0, when the support of new
device which uses EIO is added?

Regards,
-Bin.

>
>>
>>Regards,
>>-Bin.
>
> Sebastian
--
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/