On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 08:28:15PM +0530, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Heikki Krogerus > <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:27:12AM +0530, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote: > >> Hi Heikki, > >> > >> I tend to defer with your opinion of renaming otg_transceiver to > >> usb_phy. According to me otg_transceiver should program hardware > >> mechanisms associated to VBUS, ID lines, etc.. and phy is responsible > >> for transmitting data over differential data lines (with its own > >> programming of phy_init, phy_shutdown, setting phy clocks etc..). So > >> in my opinion otg_transceiver and usb_phy should be two different and > >> separate entities. > > > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but sounds like you are still marrying > > OTG with transceivers. > I'm against the idea of usb_phy married with the transceiver (i.e > transceiver = twl6030 for instance) I think the source of confusion is the split phy functionality on OMAPs. twl6030 basically provides VBUS/ID comparators which communicate VBUS/ID levels to internal PHY via a well-defined mailbox. We need a good way to write that down in source code. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
