Hi,
On Tuesday 30 July 2013 11:48 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:41:23AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-2430sdp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-2430sdp.c
>>>>>>>> index 244d8a5..17bb076 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-2430sdp.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-2430sdp.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ static void __init omap_2430sdp_init(void)
>>>>>>>> omap_hsmmc_init(mmc);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> omap_mux_init_signal("usb0hs_stp", OMAP_PULL_ENA | OMAP_PULL_UP);
>>>>>>>> - usb_bind_phy("musb-hdrc.0.auto", 0, "twl4030_usb");
>>>>>>>> + usb_bind_phy("musb-hdrc.0", 0, "twl4030_usb");
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how about moving usb_bind_phy() calls to omap2430.c ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.c b/drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.c
>>>>>>> index f44e8b5..b6abc1a 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.c
>>>>>>> @@ -544,6 +544,9 @@ static int omap2430_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pdata->board_data = data;
>>>>>>> pdata->config = config;
>>>>>>> + } else {
>>>>>>> + /* bind the PHY */
>>>>>>> + usb_bind_phy(dev_name(&musb->dev), 0, "twl4030_usb");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks like a hack IMHO to workaround the usb phy library. otherwise it is
>>>>>> similar to get_phy_by_name.
>>>>>
>>>>> actually, this is a workaround to the fact that we're not creating all
>>>>> platform_devices in arch/arm/mach-omap2/ :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> If we had the musb allocation there, we could easily handle
>>>>> usb_bind_phy()
>>>>>
>>>>>>> so that's temporary. It might be better than to reintroduce the IDR in
>>>>>>> musb_core.c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that’s needed for generic phy framework anyway :-s
>>>>>
>>>>> right, but generic phy framework can handle everything just fine, the
>>>>> only problem is that names are changing.
>>>>
>>>> right. But if the names change, PHY framework wouldn't be able to return the
>>>> reference to the PHY.
>>>
>>> with my suggestion they can change whenever they want since we're using
>>> dev_name() of the just-created musb platform_device. Right ?
>>
>> right. But the PHY device can be created in a different place from where the
>> musb devices are created. And in the PHY framework, the PHY device should have
>
> this shouldn't be a problem. As long as the phy is created, all should
> be good.
>
>> the list of controller device (names) it can support (PHY framework does not
>> maintain a separate list for binding like how we had in USB PHY library). e.g.
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg92817.html. In such
>
> this has nothing to do with $subject though. We talk about generic PHY
> framework once all these PHY drivers are moved there :-)
>
>> cases how do we pass the device names. Also will the MUSB core device be
>> created before twl4030-usb PHY device?
>
> and why would that be a problem ? We're telling the framework that the
> musb device will use a phy with a name of 'twl4030'. If musb calls
> usb_get_phy_dev() and doesn't find a phy, it'll return -EPROBE_DEFER and
> try again later.
I think we are talking about different problems here ;-) I'm trying to tell
using idr in MUSB core is needed for Generic PHY Framework. So in a way, the
Generic PHY Framework series depends on this patch series or else MUSB in OMAP3
platforms wont work after Generic PHY framework gets merged.
Thanks
Kishon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
