Hi,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:47 PM, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY <kishon@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 09/25/2012 06:23 AM, Praveen Paneri wrote:
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 09/17/2012 07:54 AM, Praveen Paneri wrote:
>>>>> This driver uses usb_phy interface to interact with s3c-hsotg. Supports
>>>>> phy_init and phy_shutdown functions to enable/disable phy. Tested with
>>>>> smdk6410 and smdkv310. More SoCs can be brought under later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Praveen Paneri <p.paneri@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/usb/samsung-usbphy.txt | 9 +
>>>>> drivers/usb/phy/Kconfig | 8 +
>>>>> drivers/usb/phy/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>> drivers/usb/phy/samsung-usbphy.c | 360 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> include/linux/platform_data/samsung-usbphy.h | 27 ++
>>>>> 5 files changed, 405 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/samsung-usbphy.txt
>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/usb/phy/samsung-usbphy.c
>>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/platform_data/samsung-usbphy.h
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/samsung-usbphy.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/samsung-usbphy.txt
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..fefd9c8
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/samsung-usbphy.txt
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
>>>>> +* Samsung's usb phy transceiver
>>>>> +
>>>>> +The Samsung's phy transceiver is used for controlling usb otg phy for
>>>>> +s3c-hsotg usb device controller.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Required properties:
>>>>> +- compatible : should be "samsung,exynos4210-usbphy"
>>>>> +- reg : base physical address of the phy registers and length of memory mapped
>>>>> + region.
>>>>
>>>> What's missing here is describing the connection of phys to host
>>>> controllers. We've got several people adding usb phy bindings and need
>>>> to define them in a common way.
>>> yes! it just covers the generic binding. I will update it accordingly
>>> as the generic phy framework takes its final shape.
>>
>> That sounds like the wrong way to define a binding... Figuring out how
>> to describe the h/w should not be dependent on changes in the kernel.
>> Bindings are an ABI and should not be evolving.
But since Kishon is getting the generic bindings ready, I can use them
when those are ready. So do we need to hold the merge of this patch
until then?
Thanks,
Praveen
>
> There can be multiple ways to define the binding. For e.g. We
> discussed few ways of binding the phys to the controller
>
> controller {
> phy0 = <&phandle1_name>;
> phy1 = <&phandle2_name>;
> }
>
> phy0 and phy1 are any name given to obtain a reference to the phy and
> the controller should send the phandle name like
> get_phy_by_phandle("phy0");. Then we thought of standardizing that
> name.
>
> and then finally we settled on something like this
> controller {
> phy = <&phandle0_name>, <&phandle1_name>;
> }
> so that controller can obtain a reference to the PHY using
> *of_phy_get(struct device *dev, const char *phandle, u8 index)*
>
> Thanks
> Kishon
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
