> > > > Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August > > (See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it > hasn't been accepted. > > Why wasn't it accepted? Have the issues raised from that last posting > of the driver now been addressed? If not, why not? If so, great. > Sascha suggested that use another platform device driver for transceiver, and follow heikki's suggested otg structure. Since heikki's otg structure is still not accepted, I will write a device driver for this freescale transceiver at coming submission. > > I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before that, I would like > get some suggestion > > from you. I think your suggestion will also be benefit for coming mx53, > mx50 and mx6q's submission. > > > > All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are mx23, > mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35, > > mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6. > > But, the transceiver is different between them > > mx23, mx28, mx6 (Transceiver A) > > mx25 mx31, mx35,mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53 (Transceiver B) > > > > Current upstream platform information: > > mx23 mx28 ==> mxs platfrom > > others (including mx6) ==> mxc platform > > > > Current upstream USB information: > > mx25, mx3x, mx51: ehci-mxc.c (host), fsl_mxc_udc.c(device, main > functions are at fsl_udc_core.c) > > > > My plan of submitting mx28 (mx53,mx50, mx6 later if possible): > > 1. Replace cpu_is_mxxx() with struct platform_device_id for ehci-mxc.c > and fsl_mxc_udc.c > > 2. Using ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c for mx28 upstreaming. > > For Step 2, I have concern that whether mxs platform users will be > confused of their > > usb driver named xxx_mxc, not xxx_mxs? > > Do they even care? > > thanks, > > greg k-h -- 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
