| Message ID | 20220107090443.149021-1-waynec@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 62fb61580eb48fc890b7bc9fb5fd263367baeca8 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/1] usb: gadget: tegra-xudc: Do not program SPARAM | expand |
On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 05:04:43PM +0800, Wayne Chang wrote: > According to the Tegra Technical Reference Manual, SPARAM > is a read-only register and should not be programmed in > the driver. > > The change removes the wrong SPARAM usage. > > Signed-off-by: Wayne Chang <waynec@nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/usb/gadget/udc/tegra-xudc.c | 8 -------- > 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) What's the impact on this? Does it fix a bug? Or is it more of a cosmetic change? Thierry
diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/tegra-xudc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/tegra-xudc.c index 43f1b0d461c1..716d9ab2d2ff 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/tegra-xudc.c +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/tegra-xudc.c @@ -32,9 +32,6 @@ #include <linux/workqueue.h> /* XUSB_DEV registers */ -#define SPARAM 0x000 -#define SPARAM_ERSTMAX_MASK GENMASK(20, 16) -#define SPARAM_ERSTMAX(x) (((x) << 16) & SPARAM_ERSTMAX_MASK) #define DB 0x004 #define DB_TARGET_MASK GENMASK(15, 8) #define DB_TARGET(x) (((x) << 8) & DB_TARGET_MASK) @@ -3295,11 +3292,6 @@ static void tegra_xudc_init_event_ring(struct tegra_xudc *xudc) unsigned int i; u32 val; - val = xudc_readl(xudc, SPARAM); - val &= ~(SPARAM_ERSTMAX_MASK); - val |= SPARAM_ERSTMAX(XUDC_NR_EVENT_RINGS); - xudc_writel(xudc, val, SPARAM); - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(xudc->event_ring); i++) { memset(xudc->event_ring[i], 0, XUDC_EVENT_RING_SIZE * sizeof(*xudc->event_ring[i]));
According to the Tegra Technical Reference Manual, SPARAM is a read-only register and should not be programmed in the driver. The change removes the wrong SPARAM usage. Signed-off-by: Wayne Chang <waynec@nvidia.com> --- drivers/usb/gadget/udc/tegra-xudc.c | 8 -------- 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)