public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
To: Tal Shorer <tal.shorer@gmail.com>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, balbi@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] usb: ulpi: remove "dev" field from struct ulpi_ops
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:02:58 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160815120258.GA11370@kuha.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1470075358-19792-1-git-send-email-tal.shorer@gmail.com>

Hi,

Please forgive me for taking so long to reply. I just returned from
paternal leave.

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:15:48PM +0300, Tal Shorer wrote:
> struct ulpi_ops is defined as follows:
> 
> struct ulpi_ops {
>         struct device *dev;
>         int (*read)(struct ulpi_ops *ops, u8 addr);
>         int (*write)(struct ulpi_ops *ops, u8 addr, u8 val);
> };
> 
> Upon calling ulpi_register_interface(), the struct device argument is
> put inside the struct ulpi_ops argument's dev field. Later, when
> calling the actual read()/write() operations, the struct ulpi_ops is
> passed to them and they use the stored device to access whatever
> private data they need.
> 
> This means that if one wishes to reuse the same oprations for multiple
> interfaces (e.g if we have multiple instances of the same controller),
> any but the last interface registered will not operate properly (and
> the one that does work will be at the mercy of the others to not mess
> it up).
> 
> I understand that barely any driver uses this bus right now, but I
> suppose it's there to be used at some point. We might as well fix the
> design here before we hit this bug.
> 
> This series fixes this by passing the given struct device directly to
> the operation functions via ulpi->dev.parent in ulpi_read() and
> ulpi_write(). It also changes the operations struct to be constant
> since now nobody has a reason to modify it.

If there are multiple instances of the same controller, the controller
driver just needs to provide a separate ops for every one of them.
This isn't really a problem as you describe it. But I'm not against
API improvements even if they don't fix anything. I'll test these
tomorrow.


Thanks,

-- 
heikki

      parent reply	other threads:[~2016-08-15 12:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-01 18:15 [PATCH v2 00/10] usb: ulpi: remove "dev" field from struct ulpi_ops Tal Shorer
2016-08-01 18:15 ` [PATCH v2 01/10] usb: ulpi: move setting of ulpi->dev parent up in ulpi_register() Tal Shorer
2016-08-01 18:15 ` [PATCH v2 02/10] usb: ulpi: add new api functions, {read|write}_dev() Tal Shorer
2016-08-01 18:15 ` [PATCH v2 03/10] usb: ulpi: use new api functions if available Tal Shorer
2016-08-16 10:55   ` Heikki Krogerus
2016-08-01 18:15 ` [PATCH v2 04/10] usb: dwc3: ulpi: use new api Tal Shorer
2016-08-01 18:15 ` [PATCH v2 05/10] usb: ulpi: remove calls to old api callbacks Tal Shorer
2016-08-01 18:15 ` [PATCH v2 06/10] usb: ulpi: remove old api callbacks from struct ulpi_ops Tal Shorer
2016-08-16 10:55   ` Heikki Krogerus
2016-08-01 18:15 ` [PATCH v2 07/10] usb: ulpi: rename operations {read|write}_dev to simply {read|write} Tal Shorer
2016-08-01 18:15 ` [PATCH v2 08/10] usb: ulpi: remove "dev" field from struct ulpi_ops Tal Shorer
2016-08-16 10:58   ` Heikki Krogerus
2016-08-01 18:15 ` [PATCH v2 09/10] usb: ulpi: make ops struct constant Tal Shorer
2016-08-01 18:15 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] usb: dwc3: ulpi: make dwc3_ulpi_ops constant Tal Shorer
2016-08-09 14:04 ` [PATCH v2 00/10] usb: ulpi: remove "dev" field from struct ulpi_ops Greg KH
2016-08-09 15:55   ` Tal Shorer
2016-08-09 16:43     ` Greg KH
2016-08-15 12:02 ` Heikki Krogerus [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160815120258.GA11370@kuha.fi.intel.com \
    --to=heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=balbi@kernel.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tal.shorer@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox