On 06/24/2013 10:36 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 01:25:31PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> >>>> In fact, the PHY setting and handling is related to platform or SOC, >>>> and for different SOC they can >>>> have same EHCI HCD but they PHY handling can be different. >>>> Omap'a case is the example, and i think some other vendors may have >>>> silimar cases. >>>> From above point, It is better to leave the PHY initialization and >>>> shutdown to be done by each echi-xxx driver. >>>> >>>> So Alan and Felipe >>>> What are your ideas about it? >>> >>> If we have so many exceptions, then sure. But eventually, the common >>> case should be added generically with a flag so that non-generic cases >>> (like OMAP) can request to handle the PHY by themselves. >>> >>> Alan ? >> >> I don't have very strong feelings about this; Felipe has much more >> experience with these things. >> >> However, when the common case is added into the core, the simplest way >> to indicate that the HCD wants to handle the PHY(s) by itself will be >> to leave hcd->phy set to NULL or an ERR_PTR value. >> >> One important thing that hasn't been pointed out yet: When we move >> these calls into the core, the same patch must also remove those calls >> from the glue drivers that currently do set hcd->phy. And it must make >> sure that the glue drivers which handle the PHY by themselves do not >> set hcd->phy. > > perfect summary. Perhaps Roger could already work on private PHY handle > for ehci-omap.c and later we can start moving generic case to usbcore > without having to touch ehci-omap.c at all. Roger, any commetns ? > This looks fine to me. I don't have anything to add. 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
