Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] phy: rockchip-inno-usb2: add a new driver for Rockchip usb2phy | From | Frank Wang <> | Date | Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:14:44 +0800 |
| |
Hi Heiko & Guenter,
On 2016/6/14 22:00, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016, 06:50:31 schrieb Guenter Roeck: >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: >>> Am Montag, 13. Juni 2016, 10:10:10 schrieb Frank Wang: >>>> The newer SoCs (rk3366, rk3399) take a different usb-phy IP block >>>> than rk3288 and before, and most of phy-related registers are also >>>> different from the past, so a new phy driver is required necessarily. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Wang <frank.wang@rock-chips.com> >>>> --- > [...] > >>>> +static int rockchip_usb2phy_init(struct phy *phy) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct rockchip_usb2phy_port *rport = phy_get_drvdata(phy); >>>> + struct rockchip_usb2phy *rphy = dev_get_drvdata(phy->dev.parent); >>>> + int ret; >>>> + >>>> >>> if (!rport->port_cfg) >>> >>> return 0; >>> >>> Otherwise the currently empty otg-port will cause null-pointer >>> dereferences >>> when it gets assigned in the devicetree already. >> Not really, at least not here - that port should not have port_id set >> to USB2PHY_PORT_HOST. >> >> Does it even make sense to instantiate the otg port ? Is it going to >> do anything without port configuration ? > Ok, that would be the other option - not creating the phy in the driver.
Well, I will put this conditional inside *_host_port_init(), if it is an empty, the phy-device should not be created. Something like the following:
--- a/drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-inno-usb2.c +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-inno-usb2.c @@ -483,9 +483,13 @@ static int rockchip_usb2phy_host_port_init(struct rockchip_usb2phy *rphy, { int ret;
- rport->port_id = USB2PHY_PORT_HOST; rport->port_cfg = &rphy->phy_cfg->port_cfgs[USB2PHY_PORT_HOST]; + if (!rport->port_cfg) { + dev_err(rphy->dev, "no host port-config provided.\n"); + return -EINVAL; + }
+ rport->port_id = USB2PHY_PORT_HOST;
> Or from what I've seen, handling it as similar to the host-port should work > initially as well most likely, supplying the additional otg-parts later on.
@Guenter, just as Heiko said, the otg-parts is not ready now, it will be supplied later.
BR. Frank
| |