linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 03/10] usb: dwc3: core: Refactor PHY logic to support Multiport Controller

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: <257716c4-7194-4d26-a34c-fff09234628f@quicinc.com>
Date:   Sun, 22 Oct 2023 23:33:52 +0530
From:   Krishna Kurapati PSSNV <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
CC:     Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        "Andy Gross" <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        "Konrad Dybcio" <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@...cinc.com>,
        <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>, <quic_ppratap@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_jackp@...cinc.com>, <ahalaney@...hat.com>,
        <quic_shazhuss@...cinc.com>,
        Harsh Agarwal <quic_harshq@...cinc.com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 03/10] usb: dwc3: core: Refactor PHY logic to support
 Multiport Controller



On 10/20/2023 3:27 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 09:17:59PM +0530, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
>> From: Harsh Agarwal <quic_harshq@...cinc.com>
>>
>> Currently the DWC3 driver supports only single port controller
>> which requires at most one HS and one SS PHY.
> 
> Should that not be "at least one HS PHY and at most one SS PHY"?
>   

No, I think it would be appropriate to say "at least one phy (HS/SS)" as 
even one phy is sufficient to get things working.

>> But the DWC3 USB controller can be connected to multiple ports and
>> each port can have their own PHYs. Each port of the multiport
>> controller can either be HS+SS capable or HS only capable
>> Proper quantification of them is required to modify GUSB2PHYCFG
>> and GUSB3PIPECTL registers appropriately.
>>
>> Add support for detecting, obtaining and configuring phy's supported
> 
> "PHYs" for consistency, no apostrophe
> 
>> by a multiport controller and. Limit the max number of ports
> 
> "and." what? Looks like part of the sentence is missing? Or just drop
> " and"?
> 
>> supported to 4 as only SC8280 which is a quad port controller supports
> 
> s/4/four/
> 
> Just change this to
> 
> 	Limit support to multiport controllers with up to four ports for
> 	now (e.g. as needed for SC8280XP).
> 
>> Multiport currently.
> 
> You use capitalised "Multiport" in several places it seems. Is this an
> established term for these controllers or should it just be "multiport"
> or "multiple ports"?
> 
This is an established term AFAIK. So I've been using it here like this.

>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309200156.CxQ3yaLY-lkp@intel.com/
> 
> Drop these two lines, as people have already suggested.
> 
ACK.

>> Co-developed-by: Harsh Agarwal <quic_harshq@...cinc.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Harsh Agarwal <quic_harshq@...cinc.com>
>> Co-developed-by:Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
> 
> Thinh pointed out the problems with the above which were also reported
> by checkpatch.pl.
> 
>> ---
>> Changes in v13:
>> Compiler issues found by kernel test robot have been fixed and tags added.
>> So removing maintainers reviewed-by tag as we have made a minor change
>> in the patch.
> 
> In general this is the right thing to do when the change in question was
> non-trivial. I'm not sure that's the case here, but the robots tend to
> complain about smaller (but sometimes important) things.
> 
Got it. Will be careful about such things next time.

Regards,
Krishna,