On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 01:41:10AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:49:59AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:33:20PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Okay. But consider this case for a moment. Merely because the OMAP > > > > > > implementation requires a bridge device between the PCI and USB layers, > > > > > > that doesn't mean the Intel implementation should be forced to use one. > > > > > > > > > > Alan, my whole point is that this is hardly an OMAP-only thing. Just > > > > > look into the many different ARM SoCs we have. > > > > > > > > All right, try this instead: Merely because OMAP and a bunch of other > > > > SoC architectures require a bridge device between the PCI and USB > > > > layers, that doesn't mean the Intel implementation should be forced to > > > > use one. > > > > > > that doesn't mean either that Intel couldn't license the same IP the ARM > > > SoCs are licensing. > > > > Of course. And when they do, maybe adding the glue layer will be > > appropriate. Until then, it isn't. > > Are you sure they aren't already ? I can't comment on future Intel products, of course, but I can say I'm very interesting in making non-PCI xHCI hosts work in Linux in the long run. If inserting a platform_device between hosts that do have a direct PCI-attached device is the only sensible way to do it, as long as power management and the Intel EHCI to xHCI port switchover works, then I think we should use a platform_device. Sarah Sharp -- 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
