On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:18:04AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Peter Chen, > > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:41:15PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > Dear Peter Chen, > > > > > > > Please see my commit log, the mx6sl-phy has some improvements compared > > to mx6q-phy. > > But they're not yet implemented as so far, this stuff is compatible with mx6q , > no ? > > Ok, this situation is something about the DT I would like to know. Shall we use > mx6q-phy ID for both so far (as the differences between 6sl and 6q are still not > implemented) or go for 6sl-phy and 6q-phy right away? > Although it has not implemented, the 6sl DT has already name "imx6sl-usbphy", I don't think we should change node name at DT file, and change it back when we add different things for mx6q and mx6sl. -- Best Regards, Peter Chen -- 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
