> Hi lists: > > 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. 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? > If mxs maintainers think it will cause confusion, I would like to change > names to ehci-imx.c and fsl_imx_udc.c for all recent Freescale SoC's (from > mx23 to mx6), is it suitable? 3. Create transceiver driver for mx28, and > it will also be used for mx6. > > Best regards, > Peter Chen > > MAD Linux BSP Team > Freescale Semiconductor Ltd. Hi, any updates on the MXS USB Host front? M -- 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
