On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 09:09:57AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > adding Julius here, > > i think i had missed adding Julius for this entire series :-( > I should be more careful with the CC list in future. > Added his chromium id, since that seems to be more active. > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 07:19:50AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > Hi, > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 09:53:09AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: > >>> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > >>> >> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:01:19PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: > >>> >> >> > Don't we have phy_power_on() > >>> >> >> > for that ? It looks like you could just as well do this from > >>> >> >> > phy_power_on() ? > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> No, unfortunately keeping these calibration settings in phy_power_on() > >>> >> >> doesn't help, since we need to do this after XHCI reset has happened. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > teach xHCI about PHYs ? > >>> >> > >>> >> sorry i couldn't understand you here. > >>> >> Aren't we trying to do the same with Heikki's patch about dwc3 : > >>> >> [PATCH 6/6] usb: dwc3: host: convey the PHYs to xhci > >>> >> > >>> >> and the 2nd patch in this series : > >>> >> [PATCH v6 2/4] usb: host: xhci-plat: Get PHYs for xhci's hcds > >>> >> > >>> >> Is there something else that is expected ? > >>> > > >>> > right, use that to call phy_init() at the right time, then you need to > >>> > add a new ->calibrate() method which, likely, will only be used by you > >>> > ;-) > >>> > >>> so you mean, the xhci should itself call phy_init() at a time suitable, > >>> so that ->calibrate() is not required at all ? > >>> > >>> i think you meant there - "then you __do not__ need to > >> > >> right :-) > > > > alright, i will prepare a patch for the suggested change. > > > > But AFAI remember we had discussion for this patch in earlier > > version, and Julius suggested to use a generic approach for such > > change wherein other users in future may be able to use the > > facility. right, and what's more generic than adding the support for PHYs straight into xHCI ? What I fear is that we end up opening the doors for every odd platform-specific operation to be added to the framework without really considering what needs to be done. That would defeat the idea of having a generic framework altogether. cheers -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
