Vivek,
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Vivek Gautam
<gautamvivek1987@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Vivek Gautam <gautamvivek1987@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> CC: Doug Anderson
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Grant Likely
>> <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:06:01 +0530, Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
>>>> index 462e5ac..b3b9af1 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
>>>> @@ -110,6 +110,8 @@ static const struct of_dev_auxdata exynos5250_auxdata_lookup[] __initconst = {
>>>> "samsung-i2s.1", NULL),
>>>> OF_DEV_AUXDATA("samsung,samsung-i2s", 0x12D70000,
>>>> "samsung-i2s.2", NULL),
>>>> + OF_DEV_AUXDATA("samsung,exynos4210-ehci", EXYNOS5_PA_EHCI,
>>>> + "s5p-ehci", NULL),
>>>
>>> I'm assuming the above change is temporary. What is left to be done to
>>> drop the auxdata in theses two patches?
>>>
>>> Otherwise the patch looks fine.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Any more thought about this patch?
> Or does this change seems fine?
I'm fairly certain we can just drop the OF_DEV_AUXDATA entry here. I
haven't been following this as closely as I should, but I know that
the comment for this table says that the whole purpose is to override
device names and that it should be temporary. We don't need to do any
overriding of device names here, do we?
When I drop this (and the ohci and phy) entries from my table I can
still boot and still can use USB. The big difference is what shows up
in dmesg
[ 1.605000] s5p-ehci s5p-ehci: S5P EHCI Host Controller
Becomes:
[ 1.550000] s5p-ehci 12110000.usb: S5P EHCI Host Controller
...and some sysfs paths change.
-Doug
--
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
