[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] drivers: usb: xhci-fsl: Implement Erratum A-010151 for FSL USB3 controller

[Marek Vasut]

On 08/26/2016 12:57 PM, Sriram Dash wrote:
>> From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex at denx.de]
>> On 08/26/2016 12:31 PM, Sriram Dash wrote:
>>>> From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex at denx.de] On 08/25/2016 08:47 AM,
>>>> Sriram Dash wrote:
>>>>>> From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex at denx.de] On 08/24/2016 12:39 PM,
>>>>>> Sriram Dash wrote:
>>>>>>> Currently the controller by default enables the Receive Detect
>>>>>>> feature in P3 mode in USB 3.0 PHY. However, USB 3.0 PHY does not
>>>>>>> reliably support receive detection in P3 mode.
>>>>>>> Enabling the USB3 controller to configure USB in P2 mode whenever
>>>>>>> the Receive Detect feature is required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sriram Dash <sriram.dash at nxp.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rajesh Bhagat <rajesh.bhagat at nxp.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>>>>   - Do Soc ver checking for applying erratum
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  drivers/usb/common/fsl-errata.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>  drivers/usb/host/xhci-dwc3.c    |  5 +++++
>>>>>>>  drivers/usb/host/xhci-fsl.c     |  8 ++++++++
>>>>>>>  include/fsl_usb.h               |  1 +
>>>>>>>  include/linux/usb/dwc3.h        |  2 ++
>>>>>>>  5 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/common/fsl-errata.c
>>>>>>> b/drivers/usb/common/fsl-errata.c index 183bf2b..f2bffba 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/common/fsl-errata.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/common/fsl-errata.c
>>>>>>> @@ -190,4 +190,30 @@ bool has_erratum_a008751(void)
>>>>>>>  	return false;
>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +bool has_erratum_a010151(void)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	u32 svr = get_svr();
>>>>>>> +	u32 soc = SVR_SOC_VER(svr);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	switch (soc) {
>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
>>>>>>> +	case SVR_LS2080A:
>>>>>>> +	case SVR_LS2085A:
>>>>>>> +	case SVR_LS1046A:
>>>>>>> +	case SVR_LS1012A:
>>>>>>> +		return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 0);
>>>>>>> +	case SVR_LS1043A:
>>>>>>> +		return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 0) || IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 1); #endif
>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LS102XA
>>>>>>> +	case SOC_VER_LS1020:
>>>>>>> +	case SOC_VER_LS1021:
>>>>>>> +	case SOC_VER_LS1022:
>>>>>>> +	case SOC_VER_SLS1020:
>>>>>>> +		return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 2, 0);
>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the ifdef really needed ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. The SVR (SVR_LS2080A, SOC_VER_LS1020) are defined in different
>>>>> ARCH specific files. So, we have used the ifdefs.
>>>>
>>>> Or you can just include all of the headers and then you don't need the ifdef, no ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The headers for the respective ARCHs are included in fsl_errata.h
>>> file. But, there are some macros/structs/variables which are common
>>> across the ARCHs, for example: DCFG_DCSR_PORCR1, RCW_SB_EN_REG_INDEX,
>>> sys_info, etc. So, they are also kept inside the ifdefs.
>>
>> I don't understand your argument. What happens if you remove the ifdefs?
>>
> 
> The fsl_errata.h file includes the headers asm/processor.h(for PPC),
> asm/arch-ls102xa/immap_ls102xa.h( for LS1), asm/arch/soc.h(for Layerscape).
> As some macros/structs are common across the ARCH, if we remove the ifdefs,
> we may

may or will ?

> experience compilation error on redefinition of the macros and structs.

And these are not easy to fix ?

> So, the ifdefs are necessary.
> 
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Marek Vasut


-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut