Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] Add support for USB OTG on STM32F7

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Hi Felipe

On 10/12/2017 10:43 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:

Hi,


On 10/11/2017 12:04 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:

Hi,

Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@xxxxxx> writes:
The STM32F7 MCU family embeds two DWC2 USB OTG cores. One core is
USB
OTG FS and the other is USB OTG HS. The USB FS core only works
with its
internal phy whilst the USB HS core can work in HS with external
ULPI phy
or in FS/LS with the on-chip FS phy.

Amelie Delaunay (7):
      dt-bindings: usb: Document the STM32F7 DWC2 USB OTG HS core
binding
      usb: dwc2: add support for STM32F7 USB OTG HS
      ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU

I have applied these three patches. Should I take the rest? They
seems
like they could go upstream through the ARM maintainers.


I will take other DT patches in my PR.

Concerning "ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU"
patch
I prefer also to take it. This patch adds some pinctrl groups but
stm32
pinctrl bindings will change in my next PR (we will use a macro to
define pins instead of using defined values). So if you push the DT
patch through your pull request there will be a merge issue.
It is possible that I take also this one ?

In that case, it's best if you take them all :-) Here's my Ack:

Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I'll drop them from my tree now

Ok perfect, I will take DT patches (3 to 7) and I let you take patch 1&2
in your tree.

Well, I have dropped them from my tree. Please two 1-7 through yours.

Hum, ok for this patchset but IMO it is better (next time) that you take
driver pacthes in your tree and I take only DT patches in mine.
No ?

Regards
Alex



I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be
applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be
applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something?

patch 1 is documentation, right? Without the documentation patch,
checkpatch will cringe :-) So either way works.

If you insist, I can take 1-2 through my tree. No worries.

I don't want to insist :) but for me it is better (and more safe) if you take patch 1&2 in your tree, and will take others in mine.

Thanks in advance.
Alex


let me know

--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux