Subject: [PATCH v4 1/2] ohci-platform: Add support for devicetree instantiation

From: [email-masked] (Hans de Goede)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:17:19 +0100

Hi,

Thanks for the review. Note I did my best to ensure my patches
would not break vt8500 support, but if you could run some tests
with them that would be great.

On 01/11/2014 09:37 AM, Tony Prisk wrote:
> On 11/01/14 11:46, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Add support for ohci-platform instantiation from devicetree, including
>> optionally getting clks and a phy from devicetree, and enabling / disabling
>> those on power_on / off.
>>
>> This should allow using ohci-platform from devicetree in various cases.
>> Specifically after this commit it can be used for the ohci controller found
>> on Allwinner sunxi SoCs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/usb/mmio-ohci.txt          |  22 +++
>>   drivers/usb/host/ohci-platform.c                   | 164 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>   2 files changed, 162 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/mmio-ohci.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/mmio-ohci.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/mmio-ohci.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..9c776ed
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/mmio-ohci.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>> +Generic MMIO OHCI controller
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible : "mmio-ohci"
>> +- reg : ohci controller register range (address and length)
>> +- interrupts : ohci controller interrupt
>> +
>> +Optional properties:
>> +- clocks : a list of phandle + clock specifier pairs
>> +- phys : phandle + phy specifier pair
>> +- phy-names : "usb"
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> +    ohci0: ohci at 0x01c14400 {
>> +        compatible = "mmio-ohci";
>> +        reg = <0x01c14400 0x100>;
>> +        interrupts = <64>;
>> +        clocks = <&usb_clk 6>, <&ahb_gates 2>;
>> +        phys = <&usbphy 1>;
>> +        phy-names = "usb";
>> +    };
>>
>> ... <snip> ....
>>
>> @@ -83,17 +156,40 @@ static int ohci_platform_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
>>           return -ENXIO;
>>       }
>> +    hcd = usb_create_hcd(&ohci_platform_hc_driver, &dev->dev,
>> +            dev_name(&dev->dev));
>> +    if (!hcd)
>> +        return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +    platform_set_drvdata(dev, hcd);
>> +    dev->dev.platform_data = pdata;
>> +    priv = hcd_to_ohci_priv(hcd);
>> +
>> +    if (pdata == &ohci_platform_defaults && dev->dev.of_node) {
>> +        priv->phy = devm_phy_get(&dev->dev, "usb");
>> +        if (IS_ERR(priv->phy)) {
>> +            err = PTR_ERR(priv->phy);
>> +            if (err == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> +                goto err_put_hcd;
>> +            priv->phy = NULL;
>> +        }
>> +
>> +        for (clk = 0; clk < OHCI_MAX_CLKS; clk++) {
>> +            priv->clks[clk] = of_clk_get(dev->dev.of_node, clk);
>> +            if (IS_ERR(priv->clks[clk])) {
>> +                err = PTR_ERR(priv->clks[clk]);
>> +                if (err == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> +                    goto err_put_clks;
>> +                priv->clks[clk] = NULL;
>> +                break;
>> +            }
>> +        }
>> +    }
>>
>
> Given that you have limited the clock parsing to OHCI_MAX_CLKS, there should be some kind of warning/error message if the DT contains more than OHCI_MAX_CLKS - otherwise you have silent failures when the clocks aren't configured.

Adding such a test would be non trivial, and is just not worth it IMHO. There is one special case of a controller with 3 clocks,
all others have 0-2 clocks, there are 0 known controllers with > 3 clocks. And if one shows up then the person writing the
dts will figure this out quickly enough, and using old kernels with newer dts files has never been a supported scenario.

> There is also no note in the binding to indicate this limitation and you shouldn't expect people writing DT files to go digging through the source to check for this.

I've been told by several people that dt-binding documentation should never contain implementation details, since it
is supposed to be platform agnostic, etc. So people writing dts files who need to know implementation details, are
actually expected to look into the implementation. And in my experience with re-using some existing drivers for
other SoC's, that is exactly what one always ends up doing.

Regards,

Hans