Hi,
On 03-06-16 15:04, Bin Liu wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:34:35PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 02-06-16 20:16, Bin Liu wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:31:03PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Some SoCs have a single phy-hw-block with multiple phys, this is
modelled by a single phy dts node, so we end up with multiple
controller nodes with a phys property pointing to the phy-node
of the otg-phy.
Only one of these controllers typically is an otg controller, yet we
Is it guaranteed that only one of them will be otg?
I guess not, but if there are 2 then with my patch we are of no worse
then today, we will then pick the first otg controller. Whereas
What if the first otg controller is not what we want? this patch does
not solve the problem. I would think Kishon's suggestion in another
email - seperate dt phy nodes - is a better option.
That is not possible as it will break the dt-bindings for existing
devices.
And that adds a lot of complexity without a good reason, as I mentioned
in my reply to Kishon if we want to make 100% sure that we've the
right controller, we should pass in the phy index argument to the
phandle to of_usb_get_dr_mode_by_phy and make of_usb_get_dr_mode_by_phy
check this.
I'll submit a v2 which does this.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
