Hi Hans,
On 3 May 2015 at 11:15, Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
On 05/03/2015 06:59 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Hans,
On 1 May 2015 at 04:04, Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com wrote:
Use usb_get_bus in dm ehci code rather then re-implementing it.
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com
drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c | 9 +-------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c index bd9861d..85adbf4 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c @@ -125,14 +125,7 @@ static struct descriptor { static struct ehci_ctrl *ehci_get_ctrl(struct usb_device *udev) { #ifdef CONFIG_DM_USB
struct udevice *dev;/* Find the USB controller */for (dev = udev->dev;device_get_uclass_id(dev) != UCLASS_USB;dev = dev->parent);return dev_get_priv(dev);
return dev_get_priv(usb_get_bus(udev->dev));To be safe shouldn't we check for NULL here?
That should never happen, and there already is an assert for that in usb_get_bus, or you mean dev_get_priv returning NULL.
No I mean usb_get_bus(). It could be hard to debug if it does happen, but hopefully the first thing they do is turn on DEBUG in that file and see the assert().
I think it is OK.
Regards, Simon