Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] phy: rockchip-inno-usb2: add a new driver for Rockchip usb2phy | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Date | Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:59:50 -0700 |
| |
On 06/16/2016 07:09 PM, Frank Wang wrote: > 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> > Suggested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > Suggested-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> > Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> > ---
[ ... ]
> + > +static int rockchip_usb2phy_resume(struct phy *phy) > +{ > + struct rockchip_usb2phy_port *rport = phy_get_drvdata(phy); > + struct rockchip_usb2phy *rphy = dev_get_drvdata(phy->dev.parent); > + int ret; > + > + dev_dbg(&rport->phy->dev, "port resume\n"); > + > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(rphy->clk480m); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + If suspend can be called multiple times, resume can be called multiple times as well. Doesn't this cause a clock imbalance if you call clk_prepare_enable() multiple times on resume, but clk_disable_unprepare() only once on suspend ?
> + ret = property_enable(rphy, &rport->port_cfg->phy_sus, false); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + rport->suspended = false; > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int rockchip_usb2phy_suspend(struct phy *phy) > +{ > + struct rockchip_usb2phy_port *rport = phy_get_drvdata(phy); > + struct rockchip_usb2phy *rphy = dev_get_drvdata(phy->dev.parent); > + int ret; > + > + dev_dbg(&rport->phy->dev, "port suspend\n"); > + > + if (rport->suspended) > + goto exit; > +
I know I am nitpicking, but return 0; would be fine here, be more consistent with the rest of the code,
> + ret = property_enable(rphy, &rport->port_cfg->phy_sus, true); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + rport->suspended = true; > + clk_disable_unprepare(rphy->clk480m); > + > +exit: > + return 0;
and this label is really unnecessary.
> +} > +
[ ... ]
| |