linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] usb: host: add xhci hooks for xhci-exynos

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: <YmomhKI7QQeVEiJF@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Apr 2022 07:30:44 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jung Daehwan <dh10.jung@...sung.com>
Cc:     Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
        "open list:USB XHCI DRIVER" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Howard Yen <howardyen@...gle.com>,
        Jack Pham <jackp@...eaurora.org>,
        Puma Hsu <pumahsu@...gle.com>,
        "J . Avila" <elavila@...gle.com>, sc.suh@...sung.com,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] usb: host: add xhci hooks for xhci-exynos

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:23:54PM +0900, Jung Daehwan wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:19:25AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 06:06:17PM +0900, Jung Daehwan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:19:17PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 06:18:45PM +0900, Daehwan Jung wrote:
> > > > > To enable supporting for USB offload, define "offload" in usb controller
> > > > > node of device tree. "offload" value can be used to determine which type
> > > > > of offload was been enabled in the SoC.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For example:
> > > > > 
> > > > > &usbdrd_dwc3 {
> > > > > 	...
> > > > > 	/* support usb offloading, 0: disabled, 1: audio */
> > > > > 	offload = <1>;
> > > > > 	...
> > > > > };
> > > > > 
> > > > > There are several vendor_ops introduced by this patch:
> > > > > 
> > > > > struct xhci_vendor_ops - function callbacks for vendor specific operations
> > > > > {
> > > > > 	@vendor_init:
> > > > > 		- called for vendor init process during xhci-plat-hcd
> > > > > 		  probe.
> > > > > 	@vendor_cleanup:
> > > > > 		- called for vendor cleanup process during xhci-plat-hcd
> > > > > 		  remove.
> > > > > 	@is_usb_offload_enabled:
> > > > > 		- called to check if usb offload enabled.
> > > > > 	@alloc_dcbaa:
> > > > > 		- called when allocating vendor specific dcbaa during
> > > > > 		  memory initializtion.
> > > > > 	@free_dcbaa:
> > > > > 		- called to free vendor specific dcbaa when cleanup the
> > > > > 		  memory.
> > > > > 	@alloc_transfer_ring:
> > > > > 		- called when vendor specific transfer ring allocation is required
> > > > > 	@free_transfer_ring:
> > > > > 		- called to free vendor specific transfer ring
> > > > > 	@sync_dev_ctx:
> > > > > 		- called when synchronization for device context is required
> > > > > }
> > > > > 
> > > > > The xhci hooks with prefix "xhci_vendor_" on the ops in xhci_vendor_ops.
> > > > > For example, vendor_init ops will be invoked by xhci_vendor_init() hook,
> > > > > is_usb_offload_enabled ops will be invoked by
> > > > > xhci_vendor_is_usb_offload_enabled(), and so on.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Daehwan Jung <dh10.jung@...sung.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: J. Avila <elavila@...gle.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Puma Hsu <pumahsu@...gle.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Howard Yen <howardyen@...gle.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c  |   5 ++
> > > > >  drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c  | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > >  drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c |  44 +++++++++++-
> > > > >  drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.h |   8 +++
> > > > >  drivers/usb/host/xhci.c      |  80 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > >  drivers/usb/host/xhci.h      |  46 ++++++++++++
> > > > >  6 files changed, 296 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > Why do you need to "override" anything?  Why can't these just be added
> > > > to the current xhci_plat_priv structure and used that way like the
> > > > current xhci platform interface works?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > "override" means above xhci hooks? Above hooks are for ring management.
> > > In fact, xhci platform doesn't care ring management. That's why I've added hooks
> > > not used xhci_plat_priv.
> > 
> > Why not add ring management ability to the platform interface instead?
> > That's what you want to control here, in your platform driver, right?
> >
> 
> I think xhci platform driver is separated from ring management. I don't
> want to disturb current design.

You are adding platform-specific changes to the driver, that seems like
it would belong in the platform interface instead of requiring another
api/interface to be created within the same driver, right?

Anyway, just trying to make it simpler overall.

thanks,

greg k-h