Hi, On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:54:40PM -0400, Matt Porter wrote: > On 10/10/2013 11:29 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 06:12:29AM -0400, Matt Porter wrote: > >>Extend dwc2 binding with an optional utmi phy width property. > >>Enable the s3c-hsotg.c driver to use standard dwc2 binding > >>and enable configuration of the UTMI phy width based on the > >>property. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Matt Porter <matt.porter@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>Reviewed-by: Markus Mayer <markus.mayer@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>Reviewed-by: Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>--- > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/staging/dwc2.txt | 4 ++++ > >> drivers/usb/gadget/s3c-hsotg.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > >> drivers/usb/gadget/s3c-hsotg.h | 1 + > >> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/staging/dwc2.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/staging/dwc2.txt > >>index 1a1b7cf..fb6b8ee 100644 > >>--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/staging/dwc2.txt > >>+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/staging/dwc2.txt > >>@@ -6,10 +6,14 @@ Required properties: > >> - reg : Should contain 1 register range (address and length) > >> - interrupts : Should contain 1 interrupt > >> > >>+Optional properties: > >>+- snps,phy-utmi-width: Must contain the UTMI data width (either 8 or 16) > > > >isn't this available in any of the configuration registers ? > > Yes and no. HWCFG4 has a UTMI data width field. However, it has 3 > valid states, "8", "16", or "8 or 16". The BCM281xx implementation is > set to the latter and the attached phy is 8-bit. > > Looking at dwc2 prior to Matthijs Kooijman's patch [1] which starts > validating the value of phy_utmi_width in that driver, the pci.c > dwc2_module_params .phy_utmi_width field there even had the comment, > "/* 16 bits - NOT DETECTABLE */". The autodetect code in > dwc2_set_param_phy_utmi_width() will fail if HWCFG4 has the "8 or 16" > option as it just decides to default to a phy width of 16 if nothing > is configured by the platform glue. This property would also allow > this issue to be addressed in that driver. fair enough, but I'd really like to hear from DT folks if your suggested binding is acceptable. It seems like we can equally argue that it's a SW configuration or HW description. cheers -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
