Hi, On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:20:55AM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote: > > > 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. Can you please point me to the link to Rob's comments? I failed to find it in this list. Thanks, -Bin. > > 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
