On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:36:52AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > I see an increasing number of patches trying to change the > > initialization sequence of the i.MX ehci controller. It's getting harder > > and harder to keep track what the changes are, what other boards > > and SoCs a single patch affects and whether it just reverts another > > patch. > > > > I thought about making the initialization completely board specific and > > creating a set of helper functions which the board can call if it wants > > to to prevent too much code duplication. > > If we really need this, I'm pro adding that kind of interface, sure. > However, at least for the MX51 stuff, altering the init order wasn't > necessary at all eventually, and I'm not sure about other SoCs. > > I also didn't follow all patches in this area I fear - could you > summarize which SoC wants it differently than the current code does it? Valentin changed it with 2f0e40aba1cafe3a834bfcbac8f1e704d496dab9 and Dinh changed it in his original patch. It may be a feeling at the moment, but I think we should have an eye on the different SoC and board specific things we add to the probe function. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- 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
