On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 02:46:04PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (review the typos)
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 01:09:32PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/usb/otg.h b/include/linux/usb/otg.h
> > index 6692df8..309f45c 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/usb/otg.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/usb/otg.h
> > @@ -48,11 +48,36 @@ struct usb_transceiver;
> > /* for transceivers connected thru an ULPI interface, the user must
> > * provide access ops
> > */
> > -struct otg_io_access_ops {
> > +struct usb_phy_io_ops {
> > int (*read)(struct usb_transceiver *x, u32 reg);
> > int (*write)(struct usb_transceiver *x, u32 val, u32 reg);
> > };
> >
> > +struct otg {
> > + u8 default_a;
> > + enum usb_otg_state state;
>
> state isn't OTG specific. Only A_DEVICE and B_HOST are OTG-related, I
> guess. the others can be used in host-only (A_*) and device-only (B_*)
> modes.
>
> I think it's better to keep state on struct usb_transceiver but WARN()
> if you get B_HOST or A_DEVICE on non-OTG configurations.
Well, my final goal is to introduce the generic otg state machine, and
the plan was to not allow the drivers to even see the state. I would
prefer to keep it in otg. I think the UDC drivers except musb do not
care about the state, and musb has basically the otg support embedded
in the driver. What do you think?
Thanks,
--
heikki
--
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
