On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 10:52:45AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 02:15:30PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:39:50PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 09:54:26AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:27:26PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote: > > > > > On 10/16/2013 04:10 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > > > > > Do you know if there are users of dwc3 other than exynos5250 and omap5? > > > > > If not, we should get rid of the old USB PHY altogether. > > > > > > > > Intel's Baytrail, at least. But they don't use DT. > > > > > > I don't see any use for the generic-phy when the device is enumerated > > > from PCI. If dwc3 can live without phys, there should not be any > > > problem dropping the old USB PHY support. > > > > yeah, I don't want to drop PHY support, I want to require everybody to > > provide a PHY, otherwise we have too many options to handle and that's > > never clean. > > I have to clarify in case there was a misunderstanding. When I said > generic-phy I meant drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c and I was not > talking about Kishon's new generic PHY framework. > > So I was only saying that if the dwc3-pci.c is the only thing that > needs the old usb phy support, then there should not be any problem > dropping the support for it. oh, ok. Got it now, thanks. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
