linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: usb: usb-xhci: add USB offload support

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:   Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:22:43 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Howard Yen <howardyen@...gle.com>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, mathias.nyman@...el.com,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: usb: usb-xhci: add USB offload support

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 06:10:44PM +0800, Howard Yen wrote:
> Document USB offload support for usb-xhci.
> 
> For example:
> 
> &usbdrd_dwc3 {
> 	...
> 	/* support usb offloading, 0: disabled, 1: audio */
> 	offload = <1>;
> 	...
> };
> 
> Signed-off-by: Howard Yen <howardyen@...gle.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-xhci.txt | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-xhci.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-xhci.txt
> index b120dd6612a2..aab1fd499f15 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-xhci.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-xhci.txt
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ Optional properties:
>    - quirk-broken-port-ped: set if the controller has broken port disable mechanism
>    - imod-interval-ns: default interrupt moderation interval is 5000ns
>    - phys : see usb-hcd.yaml in the current directory
> +  - offload: supporting USB offload feature, 0: disabled, 1: audio

Why does the "type" of offload matter, shouldn't it just be:
	0: disabled, 1: enabled
?

And in thinking about it some more, why does this need to be a binding
at all, shouldn't this just be an issue if the platform-specific ops are
available or not, meaning no DT change should be needed at all?

thanks,

greg k-h