On 03/13/2013 06:24 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> [130313 06:46]: >> On 03/12/2013 06:40 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> [130312 04:47]: >>>> Hi Tony, >>>> >>>> These patches provide the SoC side code required to support >>>> the changes in the OMAP USB Host drivers done in [1], [2] & [3]. >>> ... >>> >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-3430sdp.c | 97 +++++++++++++++- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-3630sdp.c | 100 +++++++++++++++- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-am3517crane.c | 95 +++++++++++++-- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-am3517evm.c | 66 ++++++++++- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-cm-t35.c | 95 ++++++++++++++- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-cm-t3517.c | 97 +++++++++++++++- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-devkit8000.c | 20 ++-- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c | 67 +++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-igep0020.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++--- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3beagle.c | 93 +++++++++++++-- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3evm.c | 62 ++++++++-- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3pandora.c | 52 +++++++-- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3stalker.c | 52 +++++++- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3touchbook.c | 62 +++++++++- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap4panda.c | 122 ++++++++++++++------ >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-overo.c | 54 ++++++++- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-zoom.c | 56 ++++++++- >>> >>> Can't you have some mach-omap2/ehci-common.c that takes care >>> of the initializiation to avoid this much addition to the >>> board-*.c files? You may be able to have just a common function >>> to do it and pass few parameters? >> >> Since we moved reset and power handling for the USB PHYs from omap-echi >> driver into the USB PHY driver we need to define the regulator data >> for RESET and Power line of each PHY. So most of the code added is just >> regulator data for the PHY rather than omap-ehci. > > It seems that you're now repeating minor variations of the same PHY > over and over again though. Yes it is the vcc and reset regulator data for the PHY that is getting repeated with variations in the GPIO number. > >> Instead of a common function, I can implement some macros that make it >> easier to define the regulators for the PHY in the board files. >> Does this sound OK? >> >> Personally I don't like such macros because it hides the implementation >> and is difficult to read/debug. > > I'd prefer a common function to initialize the PHY though as it sounds > like using macros would just allocate similar PHY many times which seems > unnecessary. > OK, so we want to create the regulator data at runtime to save some memory? I'll come up with something. cheers, -roger -- 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
