On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:49:54PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote: > On 20/04/15 15:35, Mathias Nyman wrote: > > Hi > > > > On 02.04.2015 15:23, Roger Quadros wrote: > >> As xhci_hcd is now allocated by usb_create_hcd(), we don't > >> need to add the primary HCD before creating the shared HCD. > >> > >> Creating the shared HCD before adding the primary HCD is particularly > >> useful for the OTG use case so that we know at the OTG core if > >> the HCD is in single configuration or dual (primary + shared) > >> configuration. > >> > > > > This doesn't apply as > > > > commit 7b8ef22ea547b80475ac7feab06fb15e0fc143d8 > > usb: xhci: plat: Add USB phy support > > > > changed xhci-plat.c since. > > > > I rebased it, and the changed version is sitting in the for-usb-next branch in: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mnyman/xhci.git > > > > But it appeared to me that usb_add_hcd() and usb_remove_hcd() will also > > call phy init and remove functions. As the order how hcds are created and added > > would change I'd need some more eyes on this to see if it will cause regression. > > > > Or maybe in the best case we could get rid of the "Add USB phy support" patch as > > we will call xhci_add_hcd() for the first hcd much later, and it could maybe init > > the phy for us? > > I thought usb_phy_*() stuff would be deprecated and we should use > phy framework instead i.e. phy_init() and friends. Except that all drivers have not been converted yet... So it's not really an option until then. > In fact usb_add_hcd() is already handling the phy for us. If it handles USB phy, then I don't really have an issue with it. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
