On 2/8/2016 2:48 PM, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
And the patch is against 3.17? You should only submit patches against the
recent kernel. In this case, against the -next branch of Felipe's repo on
kernel.org.
Could you give me the full branch name please.
See the MAINTAINERS entry for drivers/usb/musb/. The branch is named just
'next'.
I was wondering about a PHY driver too. However the AM1808 has no standalone
PHY module like e.g. the AM335x does. The PHY together with the USB core are
integrated into a single block and there is only a little control through the
SYSCFG registers.
The CFGCHIP2 register controls the PHY in practice. The code manipulating
it should be moved to a PHY driver.
I'm not sure if I can do that at the moment. Would you accept the patch using
the current situation, i.e. the CFGCHIP2 being manipulated in the da8xx.c?
Felipe accepts MUSB changes, not me. I'll ACK the patch once it's in good
shape, w/o the PHY driver.
[...]
All the other MUSBs specify these parameters in the DT. Do you want to make an
exception?
I'd prefer doing it that way, sure.
OK. So I will move the num_eps and ram_bits into the "compatible" structure.
And leave the mode, power and multipoint still configurable via DT as they
depend on the hardware wiring.
As for the mode and power, I agree -- they are part of the board-specific
platform data (there's also power-on-to-power-good delay BTW which you missed).
I believe someone still might want to set multipoint to 0 if he has a single
device (not a hub) hard-connected directly to the controller. Even if I don't
see a benefit of doing so.
Why does this parameter exist at all?
No, multipoint is a part of the 'struct musb_hdrc_config' and IIRC just
indicates whether the target endpoint control registers are present.
@@ -527,6 +561,35 @@ static const struct platform_device_info
da8xx_dev_info = {
.dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32),
};
+static int get_musb_port_mode(struct device_node *np)
+{
+ enum usb_dr_mode mode;
+
+ mode = of_usb_get_dr_mode(np);
+ switch (mode) {
+ case USB_DR_MODE_HOST:
+ return MUSB_HOST;
+
+ case USB_DR_MODE_PERIPHERAL:
+ return MUSB_PERIPHERAL;
+
+ case USB_DR_MODE_OTG:
+ return MUSB_OTG;
+
+ default:
+ return MUSB_UNDEFINED;
+ }
+}
This is clearly MUSB generic code.
So what does it mean?
Define this function in musb_core.c.
I will do. Why doesn't the musb core use directly the USB_DR_MODE_xxx literals
instead?
MUSB driver predates these (DT specific?) definitions IIRC...
[...]
Regards
Petr
MBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
