We have two types for UUIDs depending on the byte ordering.
Instead of explaining how bytes should go over the wire,
use dedicated APIs and data types. This removes a confusion
over the byte ordering.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
---
drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/usb/webusb.h | 9 +++------
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
index 8e2603688016..fa7dd6cf014d 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
@@ -829,7 +829,7 @@ static int bos_desc(struct usb_composite_dev *cdev)
if (cdev->use_webusb) {
struct usb_plat_dev_cap_descriptor *webusb_cap;
struct usb_webusb_cap_data *webusb_cap_data;
- uuid_t webusb_uuid = WEBUSB_UUID;
+ guid_t webusb_uuid = WEBUSB_UUID;
webusb_cap = cdev->req->buf + le16_to_cpu(bos->wTotalLength);
webusb_cap_data = (struct usb_webusb_cap_data *) webusb_cap->CapabilityData;
@@ -841,7 +841,7 @@ static int bos_desc(struct usb_composite_dev *cdev)
webusb_cap->bDescriptorType = USB_DT_DEVICE_CAPABILITY;
webusb_cap->bDevCapabilityType = USB_PLAT_DEV_CAP_TYPE;
webusb_cap->bReserved = 0;
- export_uuid(webusb_cap->UUID, &webusb_uuid);
+ export_guid(webusb_cap->UUID, &webusb_uuid);
if (cdev->bcd_webusb_version != 0)
webusb_cap_data->bcdVersion = cpu_to_le16(cdev->bcd_webusb_version);
diff --git a/include/linux/usb/webusb.h b/include/linux/usb/webusb.h
index b430d84357f3..fe43020b4a48 100644
--- a/include/linux/usb/webusb.h
+++ b/include/linux/usb/webusb.h
@@ -11,15 +11,12 @@
#include "uapi/linux/usb/ch9.h"
/*
- * little endian PlatformCapablityUUID for WebUSB
+ * Little Endian PlatformCapablityUUID for WebUSB
* 3408b638-09a9-47a0-8bfd-a0768815b665
- * to identify Platform Device Capability descriptors as referring to WebUSB
- *
- * the UUID above MUST be sent over the wire as the byte sequence:
- * {0x38, 0xB6, 0x08, 0x34, 0xA9, 0x09, 0xA0, 0x47, 0x8B, 0xFD, 0xA0, 0x76, 0x88, 0x15, 0xB6, 0x65}.
+ * to identify Platform Device Capability descriptors as referring to WebUSB.
*/
#define WEBUSB_UUID \
- UUID_INIT(0x38b60834, 0xa909, 0xa047, 0x8b, 0xfd, 0xa0, 0x76, 0x88, 0x15, 0xb6, 0x65)
+ GUID_INIT(0x3408b638, 0x09a9, 0x47a0, 0x8b, 0xfd, 0xa0, 0x76, 0x88, 0x15, 0xb6, 0x65)
/*
* WebUSB Platform Capability data
--
2.39.0
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 3:34 PM Andy Shevchenko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We have two types for UUIDs depending on the byte ordering.
> Instead of explaining how bytes should go over the wire,
> use dedicated APIs and data types. This removes a confusion
> over the byte ordering.
Thanks for pointing this out. I was unaware of the exact UUID
functions, as I'm still quite a newbie here.
I compiled and tested your patch in my test setup and it works perfectly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c | 4 ++--
> include/linux/usb/webusb.h | 9 +++------
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
> index 8e2603688016..fa7dd6cf014d 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
> @@ -829,7 +829,7 @@ static int bos_desc(struct usb_composite_dev *cdev)
> if (cdev->use_webusb) {
> struct usb_plat_dev_cap_descriptor *webusb_cap;
> struct usb_webusb_cap_data *webusb_cap_data;
> - uuid_t webusb_uuid = WEBUSB_UUID;
> + guid_t webusb_uuid = WEBUSB_UUID;
>
> webusb_cap = cdev->req->buf + le16_to_cpu(bos->wTotalLength);
> webusb_cap_data = (struct usb_webusb_cap_data *) webusb_cap->CapabilityData;
> @@ -841,7 +841,7 @@ static int bos_desc(struct usb_composite_dev *cdev)
> webusb_cap->bDescriptorType = USB_DT_DEVICE_CAPABILITY;
> webusb_cap->bDevCapabilityType = USB_PLAT_DEV_CAP_TYPE;
> webusb_cap->bReserved = 0;
> - export_uuid(webusb_cap->UUID, &webusb_uuid);
> + export_guid(webusb_cap->UUID, &webusb_uuid);
>
> if (cdev->bcd_webusb_version != 0)
> webusb_cap_data->bcdVersion = cpu_to_le16(cdev->bcd_webusb_version);
> diff --git a/include/linux/usb/webusb.h b/include/linux/usb/webusb.h
> index b430d84357f3..fe43020b4a48 100644
> --- a/include/linux/usb/webusb.h
> +++ b/include/linux/usb/webusb.h
> @@ -11,15 +11,12 @@
> #include "uapi/linux/usb/ch9.h"
>
> /*
> - * little endian PlatformCapablityUUID for WebUSB
> + * Little Endian PlatformCapablityUUID for WebUSB
> * 3408b638-09a9-47a0-8bfd-a0768815b665
> - * to identify Platform Device Capability descriptors as referring to WebUSB
> - *
> - * the UUID above MUST be sent over the wire as the byte sequence:
> - * {0x38, 0xB6, 0x08, 0x34, 0xA9, 0x09, 0xA0, 0x47, 0x8B, 0xFD, 0xA0, 0x76, 0x88, 0x15, 0xB6, 0x65}.
This is actually explicitly spelled out this way in the specification:
https://wicg.github.io/webusb/#webusb-platform-capability-descriptor
But I agree, the way you rewrote it is much clearer!
> + * to identify Platform Device Capability descriptors as referring to WebUSB.
> */
> #define WEBUSB_UUID \
> - UUID_INIT(0x38b60834, 0xa909, 0xa047, 0x8b, 0xfd, 0xa0, 0x76, 0x88, 0x15, 0xb6, 0x65)
> + GUID_INIT(0x3408b638, 0x09a9, 0x47a0, 0x8b, 0xfd, 0xa0, 0x76, 0x88, 0x15, 0xb6, 0x65)
Yes, this is definitely more readable.
>
> /*
> * WebUSB Platform Capability data
> --
> 2.39.0
>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 06:31:36PM +0100, J? ?gila Bitsch wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 3:34 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > We have two types for UUIDs depending on the byte ordering.
> > Instead of explaining how bytes should go over the wire,
> > use dedicated APIs and data types. This removes a confusion
> > over the byte ordering.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. I was unaware of the exact UUID
> functions, as I'm still quite a newbie here.
>
> I compiled and tested your patch in my test setup and it works perfectly.
Thanks for the testing. According to Submitting Patches documentation
you can provide a formal Tested-by tag.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 9:01 PM Andy Shevchenko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 06:31:36PM +0100, Jó Ágila Bitsch wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 3:34 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > We have two types for UUIDs depending on the byte ordering.
> > > Instead of explaining how bytes should go over the wire,
> > > use dedicated APIs and data types. This removes a confusion
> > > over the byte ordering.
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out. I was unaware of the exact UUID
> > functions, as I'm still quite a newbie here.
> >
> > I compiled and tested your patch in my test setup and it works perfectly.
>
> Thanks for the testing. According to Submitting Patches documentation
> you can provide a formal Tested-by tag.
Thanks for pointing this out to me.
I'm not really sure how to do that though.
On https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#reviewer-s-statement-of-oversight,
it says:
> Both Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags, once received on mailing list from tester or reviewer, should be added by author to the applicable patches when sending next versions.
So I guess you could do that at your convenience on any next version.
Or is it already ok, if I just add the following line in my comment?
Tested-By: Jó Ágila Bitsch <[email protected]>
I'm still quite a newbie in the kernel development community, so
thanks for bearing with my ignorance :-)
Best regards and thanks a lot,
Jó
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:54:58PM +0100, J? ?gila Bitsch wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 9:01 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 06:31:36PM +0100, J? ?gila Bitsch wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 3:34 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> > > I compiled and tested your patch in my test setup and it works perfectly.
> >
> > Thanks for the testing. According to Submitting Patches documentation
> > you can provide a formal Tested-by tag.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out to me.
>
> I'm not really sure how to do that though.
> On https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#reviewer-s-statement-of-oversight,
> it says:
> > Both Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags, once received on mailing list from tester or reviewer, should be added by author to the applicable patches when sending next versions.
>
> So I guess you could do that at your convenience on any next version.
In mine I can only do if you give me that tag. Till this
line the tag is not given, but...
> Or is it already ok, if I just add the following line in my comment?
...this is what is expected to have.
> Tested-By: J? ?gila Bitsch <[email protected]>
And now _if_ I need a new version I will bear this with it. Otherwise
maintainer, who picks up the patch, takes care of gathering these all
together.
> I'm still quite a newbie in the kernel development community, so
> thanks for bearing with my ignorance :-)
So far you are doing good, thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko