[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 4/7] usb: dwc2-otg: make regs_otg (in platdata) a uintptr_t

[Simon Glass]

Hi Marek,

On 8 June 2017 at 07:48, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 03:45 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> On 8 June 2017 at 06:33, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2017 05:34 AM, sjg at google.com wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2017 03:37 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7 June 2017 at 07:33, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/07/2017 03:28 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7 June 2017 at 06:55, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/07/2017 02:53 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2017 at 06:41, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/07/2017 02:38 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> +Tom for comment
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2017 at 00:27, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/07/2017 02:16 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 June 2017 at 17:59, Dr. Philipp Tomsich
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <philipp.tomsich at theobroma-systems.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06 Jun 2017, at 23:09, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Philipp,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 June 2017 at 07:42, Philipp Tomsich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <philipp.tomsich at theobroma-systems.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The regs_otg field in uintptr_t of the platform data structure for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dwc2-otg has thus far been an unsigned int, but will eventually be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casted into a void*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This raises the following error with GCC 6.3 and buildman:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ../drivers/usb/gadget/dwc2_udc_otg.c: In function 'dwc2_udc_probe':
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ../drivers/usb/gadget/dwc2_udc_otg.c:821:8: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    reg = (struct dwc2_usbotg_reg *)pdata->regs_otg;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          ^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This changes regs_otg to a uintptr_t to ensure that it is large enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to hold any valid pointer (and fix the associated warning).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich at theobroma-systems.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - (new patch) fix a int-to-pointer cast warning for regs_otg in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  dwc2-otg to fix a buildman failure for u-boot-rockchip/master at 2b19b2f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include/usb/dwc2_udc.h | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is clearly a USB patch ... why would it go through u-boot-rockchip?
>>> But OK, yes, I see we have no structure in place and patches go through
>>> whatever random tree these days.
>>
>> It is assigned to me in patchwork
>
> I see, USB patch assigned not to USB maintainer ... hmmmm ...

That is pretty typical if it is part of a series. It's just too hard
to coordinate multiple maintainers picking up bits of a series.

patch 1 add board feature
patch 2 add usb feature
patch 3 enable usb on board

Patch 3 cannot be applied until both 1 and 2 are in mainline, meaning
that we end up with this sequence:

patch 1 applied by board maintainer, send pull request
patch 2 applied by USB, send pull request
patch 3 applied by board maintainer

which is very slow and the feature cannot be tested until the end. I
guess you know that already, but acking a patch is helpful as it
allows them to stay together.

>
>> and is needed to fix a build
>> warning. It is tricky to deal with individual patches within a larger
>> series since there are often dependencies. I had the same issue with
>> video patches.
>>
>> Don't we normally try to keep series together?
>
> Don't we normally at least try to get AB/RB from the maintainer before
> applying patches this way ?

Yes that is best. I took your 'applied to' as an ack ;-)

Regards,
Simon