Hi, On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 04:50:42PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote: > On 11/21/2012 03:45 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 04:34:07PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote: > >> For some platforms e.g. OMAP5, we cannot rely on USBHOST revision > >> to determine the number of ports available. In such cases we have > > > > you need to make it clear *why* we can't. Imagine someone reading this 5 > > years from now... he'll be all like: "why can't I find any documentation > > about this OMAP5 ? Why was it so special that its revision register > > wasn't enough to figure out number of ports ?" > > OK, i'll add a note like this "both OMAP5 and OMAP4 exhibit the same > revision ID in the USBHOST_REVISION register, but in fact have different > number of ports physically available on the SoC (i.e. 2 for OMAP4 and 3 > for OMAP5 respectively). So we can't rely on REVISION register to > determine number of ports for OMAP5 and depend on platform data/Device > tree instead" perfect ;-) -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
