On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:12:41AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 02:49:25PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:17:49AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > > > + /* Store initial eye diagram optimisation value */ > > > > > + ret = ulpi_read(ulpi, ULPI_EXT_VENDOR_SPECIFIC); > > > > > > > > do they *all* use this register for eye diagram optimization or is this > > > > something that Intel decided to do ? > > > > > > > > (sorry, don't know much about tusb1210 other than it sucks like hell :-) > > > > > > All I know that somebody needs to save the value. The ones using this > > > PHY who don't need to save it can most likely live without the driver. > > > > right, but what I mean is: is it mandatory that Eye diagram > > configuration be stored in *this* register? Or is it more like a scratch > > register which Intel just happens to be using for Eye diagram data ? > > The eye diagram tuning is in that register. Here's the spec: > http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tusb1210.pdf > > I'll add definition for the register (which is colourfully named > "VENDOR_SPECIFIC2"). alright, thanks. > > > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > + > > > > > + tusb->ctx[0] = ret; > > > > > + > > > > > + tusb->phy = ulpi_phy_create(ulpi, &phy_ops); > > > > > + if (IS_ERR(tusb->phy)) > > > > > + return PTR_ERR(tusb->phy); > > > > > + > > > > > + tusb->ulpi = ulpi; > > > > > + > > > > > + phy_set_drvdata(tusb->phy, tusb); > > > > > + dev_set_drvdata(&ulpi->dev, tusb); > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +static void tusb1210_remove(struct ulpi *ulpi) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + struct tusb1210 *tusb = dev_get_drvdata(&ulpi->dev); > > > > > > > > completely unrelated to $subject, but we might want to have a > > > > ulpi_{set,get}_drvdata() at some point. > > > > > > Makes sense. > > > > > > > In fact, we might decide to add an entire ULPI bus, eventually, though > > > > I'm still considering if there's any benefit to that. > > > > > > I don't think I understand this comment? ULPI bus is what I'm > > > introducing in this set (the first patch in it)? > > > > I mean introducing a real struct bus ulpi_bus_type :-) With match, > > probe, remove, etc. > > I'm already doing that. Please check the first patch in this set: > "phy: add bus for USB ULPI PHYs". yeah, sorry about that. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
