On Thu, 2 May 2013, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > What do you think of my patch as compared to yours? > > I think in the end it comes down to the question where you want to > head with your driver. The way I did my version was going towards > making it similar to EHCI, with stand-alone bus glue drivers > and a core that is just a library module but does not register > a device_driver by itself. > > Given that there are just three bus glues from UHCI, and at most > two of them enabled at the same time, I don't see a direct need > for UHCI to go down the same route as EHCI. If you want to just > leave this driver alone, your patch is simpler and has the same > effect in the end. Otherwise I think my patch avoids changing it > all again once the driver gets reworked.
Okay then, I'll submit my patch to Greg after the merge window closes. > Things might also get a little messy if we are seeing a lot > of other platforms beside VIA VT8500 use UHCI, but I think that > is rather unlikely. Indeed. UHCI is the oldest of the host controller standards; people aren't about to start creating a whole bunch of new implementations of it. Even Intel no longer uses UHCI on their more recent motherboards. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
