@@ -375,7 +375,8 @@ static int usb251xb_connect(struct usb251xb *hub)
#ifdef CONFIG_OF
static void usb251xb_get_ports_field(struct usb251xb *hub,
- const char *prop_name, u8 port_cnt, u8 *fld)
+ const char *prop_name, u8 port_cnt,
+ bool ds_only, u8 *fld)
{
struct device *dev = hub->dev;
struct property *prop;
@@ -383,7 +384,7 @@ static void usb251xb_get_ports_field(struct usb251xb *hub,
u32 port;
of_property_for_each_u32(dev->of_node, prop_name, prop, p, port) {
- if ((port >= 1) && (port <= port_cnt))
+ if ((port >= ds_only ? 1 : 0) && (port <= port_cnt))
*fld |= BIT(port);
else
dev_warn(dev, "port %u doesn't exist\n", port);
@@ -501,15 +502,15 @@ static int usb251xb_get_ofdata(struct usb251xb *hub,
hub->non_rem_dev = USB251XB_DEF_NON_REMOVABLE_DEVICES;
usb251xb_get_ports_field(hub, "non-removable-ports", data->port_cnt,
- &hub->non_rem_dev);
+ true, &hub->non_rem_dev);
hub->port_disable_sp = USB251XB_DEF_PORT_DISABLE_SELF;
usb251xb_get_ports_field(hub, "sp-disabled-ports", data->port_cnt,
- &hub->port_disable_sp);
+ true, &hub->port_disable_sp);
hub->port_disable_bp = USB251XB_DEF_PORT_DISABLE_BUS;
usb251xb_get_ports_field(hub, "bp-disabled-ports", data->port_cnt,
- &hub->port_disable_bp);
+ true, &hub->port_disable_bp);
hub->max_power_sp = USB251XB_DEF_MAX_POWER_SELF;
if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "sp-max-total-current-microamp",
@@ -573,7 +574,7 @@ static int usb251xb_get_ofdata(struct usb251xb *hub,
*/
hub->port_swap = USB251XB_DEF_PORT_SWAP;
usb251xb_get_ports_field(hub, "swap-dx-lanes", data->port_cnt,
- &hub->port_swap);
+ false, &hub->port_swap);
/* The following parameters are currently not exposed to devicetree, but
* may be as soon as needed.
This is a partial revert of 73d31def1aab "usb: usb251xb: Create a ports field collector method", which broke a existing devicetree (arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mq.dtsi). There is no reason why the swap-dx-lanes property should not apply to the upstream port. The reason given in the breaking commit was that it's inconsitent with respect to other port properties, but in fact it is not. All other properties which only apply to the downstream ports explicitly reject port 0, so there is pretty strong precedence that the driver referred to the upstream port as port 0. So there is no inconsistency in this property at all, other than the swapping being also applicable to the upstream port. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org #5.2 Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de> --- drivers/usb/misc/usb251xb.c | 13 +++++++------ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)