[PATCH 1/2] USB: at91: fix the number of endpoint parameter

[Nicolas Ferre]

On 21/01/2014 09:12, Bo Shen :
> Hi J,
> 
> On 01/21/2014 01:49 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>> On 11:39 Mon 20 Jan     , Bo Shen wrote:
>>> Hi J,
>>>
>>> On 01/18/2014 01:20 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>>>> On 10:59 Fri 17 Jan     , Bo Shen wrote:
>>>>> In sama5d3 SoC, there are 16 endpoints. As the USBA_NR_ENDPOINTS
>>>>> is only 7. So, fix it for sama5d3 SoC using the udc->num_ep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bo Shen <voice.shen at atmel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>>   drivers/usb/gadget/atmel_usba_udc.c | 2 +-
>>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/atmel_usba_udc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/atmel_usba_udc.c
>>>>> index 2cb52e0..7e67a81 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/atmel_usba_udc.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/atmel_usba_udc.c
>>>>> @@ -1670,7 +1670,7 @@ static irqreturn_t usba_udc_irq(int irq, void *devid)
>>>>>   	if (ep_status) {
>>>>>   		int i;
>>>>>
>>>>> -		for (i = 0; i < USBA_NR_ENDPOINTS; i++)
>>>>> +		for (i = 0; i < udc->num_ep; i++)
>>>>
>>>> no the limit need to specified in the driver as a checkpoint by the compatible
>>>> or platform driver id
>>>
>>> You mean, we should not trust the data passed from dt node or
>>> platform data? Or do you think we should do double confirm?
>>
>> no base on the driver name or the compatible you will known the MAX EP
>>
>> not based on the dt ep description
>>
>> as we do on pinctrl-at91
> 
> I am sorry, I am not fully get it after reading the code of 
> pinctrl-at91.c, can you give the example code in pinctrl-at91.c?
> 
> Btw, the udc->num_ep is get from the following code.
> for dt
> --->8---
> 	while ((pp = of_get_next_child(np, pp)))
> 		udc->num_ep++;
> ---<8---
> 
> for non-dt
> --->8---
> 	udc->num_ep = pdata->num_ep;
> ---8<---

It seems to me pretty valid to use num_ep in this driver and not have to
rely on another compatibility string just for this.
The information is here, it is retrieved pretty cleanly so I vote for a
simple use of it: if we introduce another information we will have to
double check the cross errors that would happen...

Bye,

>>>>>   			if (ep_status & (1 << i)) {
>>>>>   				if (ep_is_control(&udc->usba_ep[i]))
>>>>>   					usba_control_irq(udc, &udc->usba_ep[i]);
>>>>> --
>>>>> 1.8.5.2
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Bo Shen
> 
> Best Regards,
> Bo Shen
> 


-- 
Nicolas Ferre