Hi, On Tuesday 21 January 2014 08:17 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 03:41:38PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >> Since PHYs for dwc3 is optional (not all SoCs that have DWC3 use PHYs), >> do not return from probe if the USB PHY library returns -ENODEV as that > > this isn't correct, they all have PHYs, some of them might not be > controllable. right, but we use USB PHY library only for controllable PHYs (apart from using nop). > >> indicates the platform does not have PHY. > > not really, that indicates the current platform tried to grab a PHY and > the PHY doesn't exist. If there's anybody with a non-controllable PHY > and someone gives me a really good reason for not using the generic > no-op PHY, then we should add a flag and we could: > > if (!likely(dwc->flags & DWC3_USB2PHY_DRIVER_NOT_NEEDED)) > dwc3_grab_phys(dwc); > > But I really want to see the argument against using no-op. As far as I > could see, everybody needs a PHY driver one way or another, some > platforms just haven't sent any PHY driver upstream and have their own > hacked up solution to avoid using the PHY layer. I was trying to address Heikki concerns in my previous version [1] where I used quirks to identify if the platform does not have PHY. [1] -> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/5/32 Thanks Kishon -- 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
