[PATCH] usb: dwc2: Add in version 4xx compatibility

[Marek Vasut]

On 4/23/24 9:09 AM, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On ven., avril 19, 2024 at 15:21, Greg Malysa <greg.malysa at timesys.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mattijs,
>>
>>> Please avoid top-posting when replying, it makes following the
>>> discussion more difficult:
>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#use-trimmed-interleaved-replies-in-email-discussions
>>
>> Will do. Sorry about that; I'm still learning about this approach to email.
> 
> No worries. There are quite some things to learn and we probably all did
> this wrong when starting. Thank you for taking the time to learn and to contribute!
> 
>>
>>> Looking at
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=65dc2e725286106f99c6f6b78e3d9c52c15f3a9c
>>>
>>> we can see that the following is added:
>>> #define DWC2_CORE_REV_MASK      0x0000ffff
>>>
>>> This makes me believe that the versioning follows a well known pattern.
>>
>> I can submit a v2 next week to bring it in line with the kernel's approach.
> 
> To me, it's fine as is.
> 
>>
>>> Note that this change is also part of:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240328131811.94559-1-seashell11234455@gmail.com/
>>
>> Or if you prefer I can also drop our patch and we can pursue this
>> linked patch with both 4xx compatibility and the 420a reset handling.
> 
> I think the patch you submitted is fine by itself, but I'd let Marek
> decide since he is the maintainer for this part.
> 
> If you have access to the hardware that has a 4.20a dwc2 controller,
> maybe you can help testing the patch above patch as well?

+CC Liu on this thread, maybe it is best if the two of you figure out 
the best common approach that works for you both ?