On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 10:28:21AM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 05:35:46PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > I would start by splitting <linux/usb/otg.h> into things which are > > really otg specific and things are only related to transceivers... > > Well.. I though I did, with the new struct otg and struct > usb_transceiver. The phy utility does not have much, and can be part > of <linux/usb/otg.h> if you like. my point is that you shouldn't add new stuff when there's already code in place to do that. So instead of adding a new struct usb_transceiver, just rename the one we have in place ;-) > > then I would rename struct otg_transceiver to struct usb_xceiv (yeah, I > > hate typing long names :-) > > How about I call the usb_transceiver usb_xceiv. Just for you ;). We > can think about something like this but.. great, sarcasm early in the day... > > only then I would start adding the PHY layer. Also, keep in mind that > > this will be a gigantic amount of work and all drivers in mainline need > > to be changed :-( > > ..This is why I decided it's better to keep the existing > otg_transceiver unchanged, so there will be plenty of time for all the > drivers to be ported to the new utility. I don't think it's worth doing that, it won't push people to fix up what's already there for ages. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
