Hi, Jochen Sprickerhof <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx> [2017-07-21 11:10]: >> Hi, >> >> Jochen Sprickerhof <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I've send a patch for this some time ago here: >> > >> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=149945465112440&w=2 >> > >> > This goes along with the patch in this thread: >> > >> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=149983203023058&w=2 >> > >> > Would be great if you could give it a try and report back. >> > >> > @Felipe can I do anything more to get it accepted upstream? >> >> you got rid of *all* context. I have no idea what you're replying >> to. Looking at the patch, though, I think this may be caused by the >> regression on the order of when to get the PHY. That was fixed by TI, >> patch is already on next and greg's queue for next -rc. Please check if >> commit 541768b08a400d9d292cfd9c898401b8178856ac helps you guys. > > No, as I wrote In my patch, it's on top of 541768b08a400d9d292cfd9c898401b8178856ac: > > | This needs and is supposed to be applied on top of > | https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9815981/ > > So we still need it. no we do not. And that patch of yours would actually regress many things. For one, you're moving dwc3_setup_phy() before we even *get* a reference to the PHY. Not to mention that dwc3_core_is_valid() only checks the revision register to verify that we're dealing with a *real* Synopsys IP. Your patch is not only unnecessary, it's also wrong. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
