On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 04:32:03PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Antoine Ténart > <antoine.tenart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:09:06PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Antoine Ténart > >> <antoine.tenart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Add the driver driving the Marvell Berlin USB PHY. This allows to > >> > initialize the PHY and to use it from the USB driver later. > >> > >> Just out of curiosity, going forward we would like to have phy drivers based on > >> generic phy framework (drivers/phy). > >> Any particular reason that we are still adding phy drivers in usb-phy layer ? > >> > >> Looking at it, seems like it can very well be written based on phy framework. > > > > This USB controller are ChipIdea compatible, and the ChipIdea common > > functions use the usb_phy framework. That's why this PHY driver is > > there. > > Ok, i see that now. In that case shouldn't we be moving even the chipidea > drivers to use the generic phy functions to get the phy and init/exit it. yes, we should :-) > I think Felipe and Kishon can comment on this better, and tell how > things should be. :-) yeah, this will just make it a little more difficult to deprecate current usb phy layer. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
