Hi, On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 02:00:00PM +0530, Venu Byravarasu wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Felipe Balbi [mailto:balbi@xxxxxx] > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:06 PM > > To: Venu Byravarasu > > Cc: stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > balbi@xxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 resend] USB: PHY: Re-organize Tegra USB PHY driver > > > > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:08:05PM +0530, Venu Byravarasu wrote: > > > NVIDIA produces several Tegra SoCs viz Tegra20, Tegra30 etc. > > > > I was reading this "driver" more closely and I have a bunch of questions > > about it, but the most important of all of them is: "why isn't that a > > real PHY driver ?". It doesn't have a probe() function, it doesn't use > > struct usb_phy to represent the PHY, it has a bunch of tegra-specific > > APIs and we can't let those continue. > > > > Please, take a look at drivers/usb/phy/omap_usb2.c (misnamed actually, > > should be phy-omap-usb2.c so we have a common prefix) to see how your > > PHY driver should look like and which sort of functionality if should > > expose to the rest of the kernel. > > Hi Felipe, > > I'll go through omap phy driver and prepare similar patches for tegra > phy driver and push them with upcoming patches. > As current patch is mostly re-organizing the existing phy driver, can > you plz merge This as is? I would have to convince me about the need for that (and I'm open to be convinced ;-), because if a later series of patches will come getting rid of the current driver and turning it into a real PHY driver, I don't see the benefit of taking $SUBJECT. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
