[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025112237-brush-unseemly-7a95@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:34:21 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: jerry xzq <jerry.xzq@...il.com>
Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: of: filter disabled device node
On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 07:31:47PM +0800, jerry xzq wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 7:26 PM Zhengqiao Xia <jerry.xzq@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > We should not point the of_node of a USB device to a disabled devicetree
> > node. Otherwise, the interface under this USB device will not be able
> > to register.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhengqiao Xia <jerry.xzq@...il.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/core/of.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/of.c b/drivers/usb/core/of.c
> > index 763e4122ed5b3..6bb577e711811 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/core/of.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/of.c
> > @@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ struct device_node *usb_of_get_device_node(struct
> > usb_device *hub, int port1)
> > if (of_property_read_u32(node, "reg", ®))
> > continue;
> >
> > + if (!of_device_is_available(node))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > if (reg == port1)
> > return node;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> > Supplementing questions from the previous email:
>
> > What changed to require this? What commit id does this fix?
> > And what devices have a disabled devicetree node?
>
> fixes: 01fdf179f4b064d4c9d30(usb: core: skip interfaces disabled in
> devicetree )
>
> Connect a USB device directly to the USB port, for me, LTE RW101.
Why? Why not just us the normal USB device topology? Why is this in DT
at all?
> However, a disabled node is attached to the DTS node of this port.
Why?
> &xhci3 {
> status = "okay";
>
> /* 2.x hub on port 1 */
> usb_hub_2_x: hub@1 {
> compatible = "usbbda,5411";
> reg = <1>;
> vdd-supply = <&pp3300_s3>;
> peer-hub = <&usb_hub_3_x>;
> status = "disabled";
>
> ports {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> port@1 {
> reg = <1>;
> usb_hub_dsp1_hs: endpoint { };
> };
> port@2 {
> reg = <2>;
> usb_hub_dsp2_hs: endpoint { };
> };
> port@3 {
> reg = <3>;
> usb_hub_dsp3_hs: endpoint { };
> };
> port@4 {
> reg = <4>;
>
> /* On-board WWAN card */
> usb_hub_dsp4_hs: endpoint { };
That's the thing I don't want to see, why is that WWAN card described
here? Why can't the normal USB device discovery find it and use it
properly?
> };
> };
> };
>
> Based on the current code, the of_node of this directly connected LTE
> device is hub.
But why is that needed?
> If there is only one LTE interface, then the of_node of this interface
> is also the hub.
Again, why?
> With the following code, the interface will be unable to create a device.
>
> if (intf->dev.of_node &&
> !of_device_is_available(intf->dev.of_node)) {
> dev_info(&dev->dev, "skipping disabled interface %d\n",
> intf->cur_altsetting->desc.bInterfaceNumber);
> continue;
> }
> Then this LTE will be unable to create a device.
> this is not the result I wanted.
Then try removing it from dt entirely, it should not be necessary to
describe USB devices in dt.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists