Hi, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> writes: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 01:35:39PM +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote: >> On 20.01.2017 12:22, Greg KH wrote: >> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:23:36AM +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote: >> > > On 19.01.2017 20:48, Greg KH wrote: >> > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 02:21:26PM +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote: >> > > > > Hi Greg >> > > > > >> > > > > This series by Arnd Bergmann was originally six patches, but last >> > > > > two of >> > > > > them were already taken to 4.10. Without the rest of them there will >> > > > > be a regression in 4.10. >> > > > >> > > > Is it really a regression? I thought this had never worked before in >> > > > older kernels, right? >> > > > >> > > >> > > Regression when xhci hosts in dwc3 controllers are used. >> > >> > So that worked in 4.9? >> > >> > > For example patch 5/6 removed setting dma mask for xhci in dwc3 host >> > > init: >> > > >> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c >> > > @@ -84,11 +84,7 @@ int dwc3_host_init(struct dwc3 *dwc) >> > > return -ENOMEM; >> > > } >> > > - dma_set_coherent_mask(&xhci->dev, dwc->dev->coherent_dma_mask); >> > > - >> > > xhci->dev.parent = dwc->dev; >> > > - xhci->dev.dma_mask = dwc->dev->dma_mask; >> > > - xhci->dev.dma_parms = dwc->dev->dma_parms; >> > > >> > > So now xhci platform driver prints a scary warning because of the >> > > missing dma mask: >> > > >> > > static int xhci_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> > > /* Try to set 64-bit DMA first */ >> > > if (WARN_ON(!pdev->dev.dma_mask)) >> > > /* Platform did not initialize dma_mask */ >> > > ret = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(&pdev->dev, >> > > DMA_BIT_MASK(64)); >> > > else >> > > ... >> > > This is fixed in the first 4 patches. >> > > >> > > There might be other other issues as well caused by having only the dwc3 >> > > changed applied of this series, but not the core and xhci parts >> > >> > Should we just fix the "scary warning" instead, by removing it? :) >> > >> > I say all of this because this seems like some very big changes so late >> > in the -rc cycle. >> > >> >> I guess that would work, or at least get us to the same stage as 4.9. >> I'll send a patch for it. > > Great. > >> Gives more time to look at the usb core changes. I'm not really >> myself running or testing the dwc3 host side. > > Me either. Any hints on some hardware that would allow me to do that?
Intel Edison. Or any recent TI board (AM437x SK, for instance). Google Pixel Phone (but good luck running a mainline kernel there ;-) -- balbi
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
