On 08/23/2012 10:29 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> For the PNX4008 removal - should I already post a patch to build the >> respective changes on top of, without PNX4008 references? > > If nobody cares about PNX4008 and nobody tested if it actually works in > the OHCI mode I don't see the point in keeping it around especially if > there are rumors to remove the arch. > > It would be nice, if you could manage to compile this thingy without > I2C. In the end one could attach something different than isp1301, no? > So I think, in the perfect world you would probe for your phy and > notice that it is not there and print a message: "Dude! Select isp1301 > for OHCI, aight?!" Currently, we really need I2C for OHCI on LPC32XX, so actually need to depend on it. Removing the I2C calls in ohci-nxp.c is waiting for the phy framework so that I don't need to introduce new API in isp1301.c at this point. And right, in the ideal world, we have no I2C dependency and can control a phy in an abstract way, even without depending on ISP1301, which could be replaced by sth. else (not sure if this will be done/soldered practically, though). For now, will post patches for the current I2C dependency and the PNX4008 removal. Roland -- 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
