[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023051723-decibel-skiing-56ed@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 06:50:57 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bhupesh.linux@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] usb: misc: eud: Add driver support for SM6115 /
SM4250
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 03:03:06AM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> Add SM6115 / SM4250 SoC EUD support in qcom_eud driver.
Why is the subject line duplicated here?
> On some SoCs (like the SM6115 / SM4250 SoC), the mode manager
> needs to be accessed only via the secure world (through 'scm'
> calls).
>
> Also, the enable bit inside 'tcsr_check_reg' needs to be set
> first to set the eud in 'enable' mode on these SoCs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig | 1 +
> drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
Given that you didn't cc the usb maintainer, I'm guessing you don't want
this patch applied?
> 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig b/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig
> index 99b15b77dfd5..fe1b5fec1dfc 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig
> @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ config USB_APPLEDISPLAY
> config USB_QCOM_EUD
> tristate "QCOM Embedded USB Debugger(EUD) Driver"
> depends on ARCH_QCOM || COMPILE_TEST
> + select QCOM_SCM
How well is that going to work on building on non-QCOM systems? Can
QCOM_SCM build if COMPILE_TEST is enabled? select is rough to get
right, are you sure it's correct here? If so, some documentation in the
changelog would be appreciated.
> select USB_ROLE_SWITCH
> help
> This module enables support for Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c b/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c
> index b7f13df00764..10d194604d4c 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c
> @@ -5,12 +5,14 @@
>
> #include <linux/bitops.h>
> #include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.h>
There's no rule to keep these sorted, but it's your choice...
> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/iopoll.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/sysfs.h>
> @@ -22,23 +24,33 @@
> #define EUD_REG_VBUS_INT_CLR 0x0080
> #define EUD_REG_CSR_EUD_EN 0x1014
> #define EUD_REG_SW_ATTACH_DET 0x1018
> -#define EUD_REG_EUD_EN2 0x0000
> +#define EUD_REG_EUD_EN2 0x0000
Why the coding style cleanup in the same patch? Remember, changes only
do one thing, and you have already listed 2 things in your commit
message :(
>
> #define EUD_ENABLE BIT(0)
> -#define EUD_INT_PET_EUD BIT(0)
> +#define EUD_INT_PET_EUD BIT(0)
Again, why this change?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists