Hi, On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:23:46PM -0600, Bin Liu wrote: > 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. Petr, thanks for the pointers, I forgot Rob commented on PATCH 1/5. I've pinged Rob again, let's see his final comments. Regards, -Bin. > > 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
