On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:52:13 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
[snip]
>
> Why ? Do we need to add an entry for every platform in there ? Besides,
> it probably should be the SoC name not the platform here....
>
> Why not simply a generic compatible "usb-ehci" ? It's a standard
> programming interface, there are no specific quirks, we shouldn't
> need to have to add new entries to the driver like that for every
> new SoC/platform.
>
Actually a grep of "usb-ehci" turns up the ehci-ppc-of driver which I somehow
missed. This driver works and uses .compatible = "usb-ehci" so I can use that
instead if that is preferable?
However it is basically the same as the ehci-platform driver so I guess at
some point the two should be merged...
> > > @@ -229,7 +230,7 @@ static struct platform_driver ehci_platform_driver =
> > > {
> > >
> > > .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > > .name = "ehci-platform",
> > > .pm = &ehci_platform_pm_ops,
> > >
> > > - .of_match_table = vt8500_ehci_ids,
> > > + .of_match_table = ehci_platform_ids,
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > };
> >
> > Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> > Linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
--
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
