> 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;
> };
Why there needs struct usb_otg at struct usb_phy?
>From my point, at general otg driver, it doesn't need to touch phy.
The phy are only needed to operated at vendor's otg driver.
So, I don't know why below is not ok:
> struct twl6030_usb {
> > > > + struct usb_phy phy;
> > > > + struct usb_otg otg;
struct usb_otg {
unsigned otg_specific;
>
struct otg_phy {
unsigned phy_specific;
}
Besides, for some SoCs, there is no otg driver at mainline until now, but
they need to get usb_phy.
> --
> balbi
--
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
