From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Quadros Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] USB: phy: nop: Defer probe if device needs VCC/RESET Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:10:09 +0200 Message-ID: <513EF0F1.5000901@ti.com> References: <1359993540-20780-1-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <1359993540-20780-3-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <51109E95.3000307@ti.com> <5110C655.3060305@ti.com> <20130205090920.GH32118@arwen.pp.htv.fi> <5110D45A.3040007@ti.com> <513DFF17.5010207@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:44643 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932122Ab3CLJK3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:10:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <513DFF17.5010207@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Marc Kleine-Budde Cc: balbi@ti.com, kishon , tony@atomide.com, b-cousson@ti.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, rnayak@ti.com, paul@pwsan.com On 03/11/2013 05:58 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 02/05/2013 10:43 AM, Roger Quadros wrote: >> On 02/05/2013 11:09 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 10:44:05AM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote: >>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h b/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h >>>>>> index 3265b61..148d351 100644 >>>>>> --- a/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h >>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h >>>>>> @@ -6,6 +6,10 @@ >>>>>> struct nop_usb_xceiv_platform_data { >>>>>> enum usb_phy_type type; >>>>>> unsigned long clk_rate; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + /* if set fails with -EPROBE_DEFER if can't get regulator */ >>>>>> + unsigned int needs_vcc:1; >>>>>> + unsigned int needs_reset:1; >>>>> >>>>> how about u8 here? >>>> >>>> Not sure. Bitfields are usually defined as unsigned int. >>> >>> IIRC the benefit is that compiler can try to optimize those flags. I >>> mean, if you have 32 1-bit flags, compiler will combine those in a >>> single u32. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. >>> >> >> Yes you are right. Kishon was asking me to use u8 instead of unsigned int, which >> I don't think is necessary. AFAIK, it is a norm to use unsigned int when defining >> a bitfield. Compilers are known to behave funny with bitfields. I don't mind >> using bool for each. > > In the current version (rogerq/v3.8-usbhost17-dt) of this patch you've > put both needs_* into the private data struct and the pdata, but it's > only used inside the probe function. > Good catch! Will fix. cheers, -roger From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rogerq@ti.com (Roger Quadros) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:10:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 02/13] USB: phy: nop: Defer probe if device needs VCC/RESET In-Reply-To: <513DFF17.5010207@pengutronix.de> References: <1359993540-20780-1-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <1359993540-20780-3-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <51109E95.3000307@ti.com> <5110C655.3060305@ti.com> <20130205090920.GH32118@arwen.pp.htv.fi> <5110D45A.3040007@ti.com> <513DFF17.5010207@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <513EF0F1.5000901@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/11/2013 05:58 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 02/05/2013 10:43 AM, Roger Quadros wrote: >> On 02/05/2013 11:09 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 10:44:05AM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote: >>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h b/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h >>>>>> index 3265b61..148d351 100644 >>>>>> --- a/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h >>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h >>>>>> @@ -6,6 +6,10 @@ >>>>>> struct nop_usb_xceiv_platform_data { >>>>>> enum usb_phy_type type; >>>>>> unsigned long clk_rate; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + /* if set fails with -EPROBE_DEFER if can't get regulator */ >>>>>> + unsigned int needs_vcc:1; >>>>>> + unsigned int needs_reset:1; >>>>> >>>>> how about u8 here? >>>> >>>> Not sure. Bitfields are usually defined as unsigned int. >>> >>> IIRC the benefit is that compiler can try to optimize those flags. I >>> mean, if you have 32 1-bit flags, compiler will combine those in a >>> single u32. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. >>> >> >> Yes you are right. Kishon was asking me to use u8 instead of unsigned int, which >> I don't think is necessary. AFAIK, it is a norm to use unsigned int when defining >> a bitfield. Compilers are known to behave funny with bitfields. I don't mind >> using bool for each. > > In the current version (rogerq/v3.8-usbhost17-dt) of this patch you've > put both needs_* into the private data struct and the pdata, but it's > only used inside the probe function. > Good catch! Will fix. cheers, -roger