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

[Sriram Dash]

>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 experience compilation error on redefinition of the macros and structs.
So, the ifdefs are necessary.

>--
>Best regards,
>Marek Vasut