Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Kevin Hilman wrote:
>
>>>Add the function to register the OHCI platform device, given the root hub
>>>related platform data passed from the board specific code.
>
>>>While at it, modify USB 2.0 clock entry in order to match the clock by name
>>>instead of by device since it is also needed by the OHCI glue layer...
>
>>>Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>>---
>>>Oops, I did hit send too early -- my copy of the DaVinci tree appeared to be
>>>not up-to-date! :-)
>
>>> arch/arm/mach-davinci/da830.c | 2 -
>>> arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> arch/arm/mach-davinci/include/mach/da8xx.h | 2 +
>>> 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>>>Index: linux-davinci/arch/arm/mach-davinci/da830.c
>>>===================================================================
>>>--- linux-davinci.orig/arch/arm/mach-davinci/da830.c
>>>+++ linux-davinci/arch/arm/mach-davinci/da830.c
>>>@@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static struct davinci_clk da830_clks[] =
>>> CLK("davinci-mcasp.0", NULL, &mcasp0_clk),
>>> CLK("davinci-mcasp.1", NULL, &mcasp1_clk),
>>> CLK("davinci-mcasp.2", NULL, &mcasp2_clk),
>>>- CLK("musb_hdrc", NULL, &usb20_clk),
>>>+ CLK(NULL, "usb20", &usb20_clk),
>
>> I can live with it this way, but is there a reason you don't
>> want:
>
>> CLK("ohci, "usb20", &usb20_clk),
>
>> and add "ohci" to the usb11_clk as well?
>
> I'm seeing no gain from it, only a drawback (of wasting some memory).
>
ok, this looks fine to me.
Since this is an RFC, do you have an updated version? or should I
just apply this one.
Kevin
--
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
