Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 15:19:27 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Howard Yen <howardyen@google.com>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] add xhci hooks for USB offload
Message-ID: <YBAk795ccXBPgJWp@kroah.com>
References: <20210119101044.1637023-1-howardyen@google.com>
 <af91bbf1-6731-3e87-4086-de0dbba22c22@intel.com>
 <CAJDAHvbTY3Z_bRg+++uLefWSvCWo_nGq+3OOQX3QHJ2w3X1SQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ca442ca7-a434-2527-9945-861dafa685cc@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ca442ca7-a434-2527-9945-861dafa685cc@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:32:58PM +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> On 20.1.2021 12.04, Howard Yen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:47 PM Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.1.2021 12.10, Howard Yen wrote:
> >>> To let the xhci driver support USB offload, add hooks for vendor to have
> >>> customized behavior for the initialization, memory allocation, irq work, and
> >>> device context synchronization. Detail is in each patch commit message.
> >>
> >> Is this related to the usb audio sideband capability that was added to the xHCI specification?
> >> If yes, then we should probably implement the generic parts first, and then add
> >> the vendor specific hooks.
> >>
> >> -Mathias
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > This is for offloading, no matter what type of offloading.
> > I made the hooks generically and can be used for usb audio on the xhci
> > which is not including the usb audio sideband capability.
> > 
> 
> Ok, before adding hooks like this I think we need to see how they are used.
> Do you have the rest of the patches that go on top of this series?
> 
> Maybe it could make sense to use overrides for the functions in struct hc_driver
> instead in some cases? There is support for that already.

What overrides could be done for these changes?  At first glance that
would seem to require a lot of duplicated code in whatever override
happens to be needed.

thanks,

greg k-h