Hi, On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:41:46PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:19:42PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > Uh.. We should have talked about this earlier. My fault. You want > > the phy to be always available. I would prefer to have the chance to be > > able to use otg even if there is no phy driver at all. When we have > > USB2 with UTMI+ controller, there is no need to have phy driver. This > > I could say the same about a ULPI compliant driver. The catch isn't if > the PHY is ULPI or UTMI+ compliant, the catch is if we need to tweak > anything on the controller for whatever reason (PM, comparator levels, > timer expiration, etc). > > Every single USB2 PHY on the market will be either ULPI or UTMI+ > compliant, otherwise we can't make an SoC unless we also design the PHYs > and don't allow customer to use another PHY, right ? If there's no > standard to follow, we could not use an off-the-shelf PHY. This means > that just because your PHY is UTMI+ compliant, it doesn't mean it's > Plug-N-Play. That's why we generally have an I2C control interface. Just > to make things easier should we need to e.g. turn off a regulator to > save few extra mA. OK, I will change this. -- 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
