Re: [PATCH v9 0/5] Re-introduce TX FIFO resize for larger EP bursting

Wesley Cheng
2021-06-08T05:08:06Z

Hi Jack,

On 6/7/2021 9:04 AM, Jack Pham wrote:
> Hey Wesley,
>
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 01:54:48PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:49:16AM -0700, Wesley Cheng wrote:
>>> Changes in V9:
>>> - Fixed incorrect patch in series. Removed changes in DTSI, as dwc3-qcom will
>>> add the property by default from the kernel.
>>
>> This patch series has one build failure and one warning added:
>>
>> drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c: In function ‘dwc3_gadget_calc_tx_fifo_size’:
>> drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c:653:45: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘dwc3_mdwidth’ makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
>> 653 | mdwidth = dwc3_mdwidth(dwc->hwparams.hwparams0);
>> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~
>> | |
>> | u32 {aka unsigned int}
>> In file included from drivers/usb/dwc3/debug.h:14,
>> from drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c:25:
>> drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h:1493:45: note: expected ‘struct dwc3 *’ but argument is of type ‘u32’ {aka ‘unsigned int’}
>> 1493 | static inline u32 dwc3_mdwidth(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
>
> I'm guessing you were previously using the DWC3_MDWIDTH macro which
> operated on the 'hwparams0' reg value directly, but probably had to
> switch it to the dwc3_mdwidth() inline function that Thinh had replaced
> it with recently. Forgot to compile-test I bet? :)
>
Ah, looks like that's the case. I tried this on our internal branches,
which didn't have Thinh's change, which is probably why it worked in the
first place. Will fix this.

>> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c: In function ‘dwc3_qcom_of_register_core’:
>> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c:660:23: error: implicit declaration of function ‘of_add_property’; did you mean ‘of_get_property’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>> 660 | ret = of_add_property(dwc3_np, prop);
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> | of_get_property
>
> Scratched my head on this one a bit, since 'of_add_property' is clearly
> declared in <linux/of.h> which dwc3-qcom.c directly includes. Then I
> looked closer and saw the declaration only in case of #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> and noticed it doesn't have a corresponding no-op static inline
> definition in the case of !CONFIG_OF. Again I'm guessing here that Greg
> must have built on a non-OF config. We should probably include a patch
> that adds the stub.
>

Nice catch, will add the stub.

Thanks
Wesley Cheng

> Thanks,
> Jack
>

--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,