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  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, 21 Dec 2017 14:48:24 +0800
From:   Chunfeng Yun <>
To:     Rob Herring <>
CC:     Felipe Balbi <>,
        Matthias Brugger <>,
        Mathias Nyman <>,
        "Mark Rutland" <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Jean Delvare <>,
        "Sean Wang" <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Add USB remote wakeup driver

On Fri, 2017-12-15 at 14:55 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 04:45:29PM +0800, Chunfeng Yun wrote:
> >     These patches introduce the SSUSB and SPM glue layer driver which is
> > used to support usb remote wakeup. Usually the glue layer is put into
> > a system controller, such as PERICFG module.
> >     The old way to support usb wakeup is put into SSUSB controller drivers,
> > including xhci-mtk driver and mtu3 driver, but there are some problems:
> >     1. can't disdinguish the relation between glue layer and SSUSB IP
> >        when SoCs supports multi SSUSB IPs;
> >     2. duplicated code for wakeup are put into both xhci-mtk and mtu3
> >        drivers;
> >     3. the glue layer may vary on different SoCs with SSUSB IP, and will
> >        make SSUSB controller drivers complicated;
> >     In order to resolve these problems, it's useful to make the glue layer
> > transparent by extracting a seperated driver, meanwhile to reduce the
> > duplicated code and simplify SSUSB controller drivers.
> Both the driver and binding look overly complicated to me when it looks 
> like you just have 2 versions of enable/disable functions which modify 
> a single register. The complexity may be justified if this was a common 
> binding and driver, but it is not.
> You already have a phandle to the system controller. Can't you add cells 
> to it to handle any differences between instances? That and SoC specific 
> compatible strings should be enough to handle differences.
Yes, adding cells will also work well, I'll try it, thanks a lot
> Rob

Powered by blists - more mailing lists