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

[voice.shen@atmel.com (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@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<---

> Best Regards,
> J.
>>>>   			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