On 26.02.2016 15:23, Bin Liu wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:29:12AM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
On 26.02.2016 04:15, Bin Liu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 01:04:13PM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
Well, so we're still at the same point - there is a fundamental
mismatch in the different developers' view how the "power" parameter
should be represented.
There already 3 opinions at the moment:
1) hard code - Felipe, Rob
2) use the "mentor,power" - Sergei, Petr
3) use a regulator - Rob
So unless this conflict is resolved it is slightly difficult to
submit a patch that would get accepted.
How can we resolve this conflict ?
This power property is used by core to control the hub port power
budget, which is sourced by vbus. But vbus is not coming from musb, but
a board power rail. So hardcode it does not make sense.
Regards,
-Bin.
So what would be your take then?
Don't hardcode in 5/5, and drop musb_get_power() in this patch.
Hi Bin,
I will drop the musb_get_power and use the "mentor,power" property.
However Rob is not willing to accept that, he's insisting on a regulator.
Regards
Petr
--
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
