Hi Marek,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] usb: ehci-mx6: Improve the bind function
On 9/16/20 3:56 PM, Peng Fan wrote:
Hi Marek,
Hi,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] usb: ehci-mx6: Improve the bind function
On 9/16/20 2:57 PM, peng.fan@nxp.com wrote: [...]
+++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-mx6.c @@ -735,13 +735,16 @@ static int ehci_usb_bind(struct udevice *dev) * the driver is fully converted to DT probing. */ u32 controller_spacing;
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MX6))
controller_spacing = 0x200;else
controller_spacing = 0x10000;fdt_addr_t addr = devfdt_get_addr_index(dev, 0);
dev->req_seq = (addr - USB_BASE_ADDR) / controller_spacing;
- if (dev->req_seq == -1) {
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MX6))controller_spacing = 0x200;elsecontroller_spacing = 0x10000;fdt_addr_t addr = devfdt_get_addr_index(dev, 0);Can we get rid of the whole req_seq stuff ?
Could the restructure be done after the patchset? Or you need NXP to restructure the driver, then upstream NXP production ready patches?
If restructure first, there will be lots conflicts when I pick downstream patches, and error prone.
Can you prepare an RFC patchset for the restructuring on top of this one, so you can bisect breakage caused by the restructuring, and post those patches ? Then you will get your production-ready patches in without much changes and also there will be the long-overdue cleanup on the ML.
I really want NXP to do the cleanup, because the driver is becoming real bad and it is piling up a lot of unrelated code in it. I don't care about the order in which the patches go in though.
Does that work ?
Ok, so you agree that we do a cleanup patch based on the pachset, but you wanna to see NXP has start the real work before considering take the patchset, if I understand correct.
Then let me reserve time or ask other NXP guys doing this.
Thanks, Peng.