Hi,
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:41:23AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-2430sdp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-2430sdp.c
> >>>>>> index 244d8a5..17bb076 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-2430sdp.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-2430sdp.c
> >>>>>> @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ static void __init omap_2430sdp_init(void)
> >>>>>> omap_hsmmc_init(mmc);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> omap_mux_init_signal("usb0hs_stp", OMAP_PULL_ENA | OMAP_PULL_UP);
> >>>>>> - usb_bind_phy("musb-hdrc.0.auto", 0, "twl4030_usb");
> >>>>>> + usb_bind_phy("musb-hdrc.0", 0, "twl4030_usb");
> >>>>>
> >>>>> how about moving usb_bind_phy() calls to omap2430.c ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.c b/drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.c
> >>>>> index f44e8b5..b6abc1a 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.c
> >>>>> @@ -544,6 +544,9 @@ static int omap2430_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> pdata->board_data = data;
> >>>>> pdata->config = config;
> >>>>> + } else {
> >>>>> + /* bind the PHY */
> >>>>> + usb_bind_phy(dev_name(&musb->dev), 0, "twl4030_usb");
> >>>>
> >>>> This looks like a hack IMHO to workaround the usb phy library. otherwise it is
> >>>> similar to get_phy_by_name.
> >>>
> >>> actually, this is a workaround to the fact that we're not creating all
> >>> platform_devices in arch/arm/mach-omap2/ :-)
> >>>
> >>> If we had the musb allocation there, we could easily handle
> >>> usb_bind_phy()
> >>>
> >>>>> so that's temporary. It might be better than to reintroduce the IDR in
> >>>>> musb_core.c.
> >>>>
> >>>> that’s needed for generic phy framework anyway :-s
> >>>
> >>> right, but generic phy framework can handle everything just fine, the
> >>> only problem is that names are changing.
> >>
> >> right. But if the names change, PHY framework wouldn't be able to return the
> >> reference to the PHY.
> >
> > with my suggestion they can change whenever they want since we're using
> > dev_name() of the just-created musb platform_device. Right ?
>
> right. But the PHY device can be created in a different place from where the
> musb devices are created. And in the PHY framework, the PHY device should have
this shouldn't be a problem. As long as the phy is created, all should
be good.
> the list of controller device (names) it can support (PHY framework does not
> maintain a separate list for binding like how we had in USB PHY library). e.g.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg92817.html. In such
this has nothing to do with $subject though. We talk about generic PHY
framework once all these PHY drivers are moved there :-)
> cases how do we pass the device names. Also will the MUSB core device be
> created before twl4030-usb PHY device?
and why would that be a problem ? We're telling the framework that the
musb device will use a phy with a name of 'twl4030'. If musb calls
usb_get_phy_dev() and doesn't find a phy, it'll return -EPROBE_DEFER and
try again later.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
