On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:30:58AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:27:58AM +0530, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c b/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c
> > > index 2f5c299..3441738 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c
> > > @@ -87,7 +87,8 @@
> > > #define VBUS_DET BIT(2)
> > >
> > > struct twl6030_usb {
> > > - struct usb_phy otg;
> > > + struct usb_phy phy;
> > > + struct usb_otg otg;
> > I see otg being added to twl6030_usb (changes from v7). Whats the
> > reason behind this?
> > I think its better to have it in the way you had in v7.
>
> Felipe felt there is no reason for the drivers to need to allocate the
> structure. That is why I changed it.
Yeah, but what I meant by that is that struct usb_phy would have a
struct usb_otg field, not just a pointer to struct usb_otg. Something
like:
struct usb_otg {
unsigned a,b,c;
};
struct usb_phy {
struct usb_otg otg;
};
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
