Hi Tomasz,
Sorry! I I missed this comment of yours. Is it okay if we keep
pmu_isolation as it is (as it does not seem much out of the line). We
have already gone through a lot of rework and there has been no
fruitful result :(
Also after Viveks work, this is only milited to non DT SoCs.
Thanks,
Praveen
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Praveen,
>
> On Friday 23 of November 2012 09:56:37 Praveen Paneri wrote:
>> >> +static void samsung_usbphy_enable(struct samsung_usbphy *sphy)
>> >> +{
>> >> + void __iomem *regs = sphy->regs;
>> >> + u32 phypwr;
>> >> + u32 phyclk;
>> >> + u32 rstcon;
>> >> +
>> >> + /* set clock frequency for PLL */
>> >> + phyclk = sphy->ref_clk_freq;
>> >> + phypwr = readl(regs + SAMSUNG_PHYPWR);
>> >> + rstcon = readl(regs + SAMSUNG_RSTCON);
>> >> +
>> >> + switch (sphy->cpu_type) {
>> >> + case TYPE_S3C64XX:
>> >> + phyclk &= ~PHYCLK_COMMON_ON_N;
>> >> + phypwr &= ~PHYPWR_NORMAL_MASK;
>> >> + rstcon |= RSTCON_SWRST;
>> >> + break;
>> >> + case TYPE_EXYNOS4210:
>> >> + phypwr &= ~PHYPWR_NORMAL_MASK_PHY0;
>> >> + rstcon |= RSTCON_SWRST;
>> >> + default:
>> >> + break;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + writel(phyclk, regs + SAMSUNG_PHYCLK);
>> >> + /* set to normal of PHY0 */
>> >
>> > I don't understand this comment.
>>
>> Will change it to " Configure PHY0 for normal operation"
>> That should be more clear, I suppose.
>
> Yes, much better.
>
>> >> + */
>> >> +
>> >> +#ifndef __SAMSUNG_USBPHY_PLATFORM_H
>> >> +#define __SAMSUNG_USBPHY_PLATFORM_H
>> >> +
>> >> +/**
>> >> + * samsung_usbphy_data - Platform data for USB PHY driver.
>> >> + * @pmu_isolation: Function to control usb phy isolation in PMU.
>> >> + */
>> >> +struct samsung_usbphy_data {
>> >> + void (*pmu_isolation)(int on);
>> >
>> > I believe this should be named in a generic way. This is called PMU
>> > isolation on Exynos SoCs, but on S3C64xx it's USB PHY mask.
>>
>> Yes! I am aware of it. The fact that this ( MASK or ISOLATION) has
>> always been part of the PMU, pmu_isolation seems quite generic that
>> way. Though you can suggest a better name.
>
> What do you think about set_isolation(int on) or power_isolation(int on)?
Sorry! I don't understand the point here.Why to invest so much of time
and evergy on things we want to remove soon.
I am a bit reluctant to change this now, after sending 9 versions of
the same code.
Lets concentrate on more important things like AUXDATA removal or
adding support for all DT enabled machines.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Tomasz Figa
> Samsung Poland R&D Center
> SW Solution Development, Linux Platform
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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
