Re: [PATCH] usb: xhci: Restore Renesas uPD72020x support in xhci-pci

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 01:00:26PM +0100, nb@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Nicolai Buchwitz <nb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Before commit 25f51b76f90f1 ("xhci-pci: Make xhci-pci-renesas a proper
> modular driver"), the xhci-pci driver handled the Renesas uPD72020x USB3
> PHY and only utilized features of xhci-pci-renesas when no external
> firmware EEPROM was attached. This allowed devices with a valid firmware
> stored in EEPROM to function without requiring xhci-pci-renesas.
> 
> That commit changed the behavior, making xhci-pci-renesas responsible for
> handling these devices entirely, even when firmware was already present
> in EEPROM. As a result, unnecessary warnings about missing firmware files
> appeared, and more critically, USB functionality broke whens
> CONFIG_USB_XHCI_PCI_RENESAS was not enabled—despite previously workings
> without it.
> 
> Fix this by ensuring that devices are only handed over to xhci-pci-renesas
> if the config option is enabled. Otherwise, restore the original behavior
> and handle them as standard xhci-pci devices.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicolai Buchwitz <nb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 25f51b76f90f ("xhci-pci: Make xhci-pci-renesas a proper modular driver")
> ---
>  drivers/usb/host/xhci-pci.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-pci.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-pci.c
> index 2d1e205c14c60..4ce80d8ac603e 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-pci.c
> @@ -654,9 +654,11 @@ int xhci_pci_common_probe(struct pci_dev *dev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(xhci_pci_common_probe, "xhci");
>  
>  static const struct pci_device_id pci_ids_reject[] = {
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_PCI_RENESAS)
>  	/* handled by xhci-pci-renesas */
>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_RENESAS, 0x0014) },
>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_RENESAS, 0x0015) },
> +#endif
>  	{ /* end: all zeroes */ }
>  };

Have you seen:
	https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250128104529.58a79bfc@foxbook
?

Which one is correct?

thanks,

greg k-h