[PATCH/RFC 0/3] Allow OHCI drivers to override hub control operations

Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com
Tue Apr 15 08:32:26 PDT 2014

Hi Alan,

Thank you for your comments.

On Monday 14 April 2014 10:35:43 Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > The PXA27x OHCI implementation doesn't perform automatic control of port
> > power supplies for all ports. While the PPS and LSDA bits of the
> > HcRhPortStatus register are implemented, only a subset of ports have an
> > external power enable pin controlled by the port status register. Other
> > ports need their power supply to be controlled manually.
> > 
> > In order to do so I've implemented manual regulator control in the
> > ohci-pxa27x driver. This requires overriding the default behaviour of the
> > custom hub control operation. In turn this requires calling the currently
> > static ohci_hub_control function from the ohci-pxa27x driver.
> > 
> > The ohci-s3c2410 driver already implements a similar feature, and accesses
> > the ohci_hub_control function by saving the struct hc_driver hub_control
> > value to a global variable right after calling ohci_init_driver. This is
> > a bit of a hack, and as I need to call that function as well I've decided
> > to export it instead.
> It only seems like a hack if you don't think about it the right way.  :-)
> The intention was to imitate an object-oriented style, by allowing a child
> class to override member functions in the parent class. The vtable mechanism
> in C++, for example, does essentially the same thing as ohci-s3c2410 (except
> that C++ doesn't save the original function pointer in a global variable;
> instead it reads the function pointer from the parent's vtable as needed --
> ohci-s3c2410 can't do that because ohci_hc_driver isn't exported).

gcc 4.9 has been released with a new speculative devirtualization optimization 
pass. As we don't use C++ we can't make use of that feature, so we need to 
perform the optimization manually, hence this change :-) 

> I'm open to the idea of exporting the hub functions. In the end, it doesn't
> make all that much difference (it would save a little object code).

I would have agreed to keep the code as it is today if you had thought that 
exporting the hub functions was a really bad idea, but as you're open to it, 
and as it removes a bit of code without much of a drawback, I think it makes 
sense to perform that optimization.

> > Another option would have been to handle the regulators directly inside
> > the ohci-hub implementation, but I'm not sure whether it's worth it yet.
> > Comments (or acks :-)) will be appreciated.
> > 
> > Please not that I haven't been able to test the third patch due to lack of
> > hardware. I've however tested a similar implementation on an out of tree
> > PXA270 board.
> > 
> > Laurent Pinchart (3):
> >   USB: OHCI: Export the ohci_hub_control function
> >   USB: ohci-pxa27x: Add support for external vbus regulators
> >   ARM: pxa: zeus: Replace OHCI init/exit functions with a regulator
> >  
> >  arch/arm/mach-pxa/zeus.c        | 89 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >  drivers/usb/host/ohci-hub.c     |  4 +-
> >  drivers/usb/host/ohci-pxa27x.c  | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/usb/host/ohci-s3c2410.c |  7 +---
> >  drivers/usb/host/ohci.h         |  2 +
> >  5 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> You missed ohci-at91.c.  And ehci-tegra.c plays similar games.  I'd prefer
> to do the same thing for both ehci-hcd and ohci-hcd.

OK. I'll work on a v2 of patch 1/3 that modifies ohci-at91.c as well, and I'll 
add a new patch to perform the same change for ehci-hub.c and ehci-tegra.c.

By the way, as a second step, do you think it would make sense to handle the 
vbus regulators directly in ohci_hub_control() ?


Laurent Pinchart

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list