On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:50 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> On Friday 25 October 2013 07:45 PM, Kamil Debski wrote:
> > From: Mateusz Krawczuk <m.krawczuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Add support for the Samsung's S5PV210 SoC to the Exynos USB PHY driver.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mateusz Krawczuk <m.krawczuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [k.debski@xxxxxxxxxxx: whitespace cleanup and commit description]
> > Signed-off-by: Kamil Debski <k.debski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/phy/Kconfig | 7 ++
> > drivers/phy/phy-exynos-usb.c | 10 ++
> > drivers/phy/phy-exynos-usb.h | 1 +
> > drivers/phy/phy-s5pv210-usb.c | 236 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 254 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/phy/phy-s5pv210-usb.c
[.....]
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-s5pv210-usb.c b/drivers/phy/phy-s5pv210-usb.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..575275d
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-s5pv210-usb.c
>
> how different is this IP different from the previous ones? Does it deserve a
> separate driver or the previous drivers can be re-used?
[.....]
> > +const struct uphy_config s5pv210_uphy_config = {
> > + .cpu = TYPE_S5PV210,
> > + .num_phys = S5PV210_NUM_PHYS,
> > + .phys = s5pv210_phys,
> > +};
>
> IMO this looks similar to the other drivers. Please re-use the drivers wherever
> possible.
>
+cc Praveen Paneri(Author of Samsung PHY driver), Yulgon Kim, Anton Tikhomirov
I agree with Kishon's opinion.
Actually, all Exynos USB PHY controllers are not different IPs.
However, the differences between Exynos USB PHY controllers are
not little.
Best regards,
Jingoo Han
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
