linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] usb: common and dwc3: converting to unified device property

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]

Message-ID: <20150827013720.GA24001@shlinux2>
Date:	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:37:21 +0800
From:	Peter Chen <peter.chen@...escale.com>
To:	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>,
	<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] usb: common and dwc3: converting to unified device
 property

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:13:22PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:53:20PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:04:30PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > While converting dwc3 to the unified device property interface, I
> > > noticed that there is really nothing preventing of_usb_get_dr_mode and
> > > of_usb_get_maximum_speed from being converted as well. Hope that's OK.
> > > 
> > 
> > Place the reference for usb_get_dr_mode and usb_get_maximum_speed
> > at otg.h and ch9.h may not be good, why not add a common.h which
> > is at include/linux/usb/ too.
> 
> Why? I'm not going to introduce new header file for prototypes which
> depend on constants defined in other header files, unless there is a
> really good reason. Please note that the prototypes for the existing
> generic functions in common.c are defined in ch9.h and otg.h.

Ok, I just had considered host controller driver may also call
usb_get_maximum_speed to get platform available speed, so I am
wonder if it is suitable to place it at ch9.h.

> 
> These functions are _generic_ helpers for dealing with definitions in
> ch9.h and otg.h, so I don't really see any reason for putting their
> prototypes anywhere else then into those same headers.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> heikki

-- 

Best Regards,
Peter Chen
--
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/