[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191117071345.GB496402@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 08:13:45 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Ikjoon Jang <ikjn@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Suwan Kim <suwan.kim027@...il.com>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Nicolas Boitchat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] usb: overridable hub bInterval by device node
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 11:33:05AM +0800, Ikjoon Jang wrote:
> This patch enables hub device to override its own endpoint descriptor's
> bInterval when the hub has a device node with "hub,interval" property,
>
> Some existing hub devices have adjustable interval so the device is
> allowed to use different bInterval. This is useful when the hub's default
> bInterval is too big, so child device's waking up from autosuspend
> takes much time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ikjoon Jang <ikjn@...omium.org>
> ---
> drivers/usb/core/config.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/config.c b/drivers/usb/core/config.c
> index 5f40117e68e7..234ca6124c98 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/core/config.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/config.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> #include <linux/usb.h>
> #include <linux/usb/ch9.h>
> #include <linux/usb/hcd.h>
> +#include <linux/usb/of.h>
> #include <linux/usb/quirks.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> @@ -257,6 +258,11 @@ static int usb_parse_endpoint(struct device *ddev, int cfgno, int inum,
> memcpy(&endpoint->desc, d, n);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&endpoint->urb_list);
>
> + /* device node property overrides bInterval */
> + if (unlikely(usb_of_has_combined_node(to_usb_device(ddev))))
Only ever use likely/unlikely if you can measure the difference with a
benchmark. If not, then never use it as the compiler and CPU will
almost always get it right and more correct than you can.
And for code that has no performance issues/impact like this one, never
do it.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists