On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 04:37:11PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote: > On 06/24/2013 10:36 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 01:25:31PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> > >>>> In fact, the PHY setting and handling is related to platform or SOC, > >>>> and for different SOC they can > >>>> have same EHCI HCD but they PHY handling can be different. > >>>> Omap'a case is the example, and i think some other vendors may have > >>>> silimar cases. > >>>> From above point, It is better to leave the PHY initialization and > >>>> shutdown to be done by each echi-xxx driver. > >>>> > >>>> So Alan and Felipe > >>>> What are your ideas about it? > >>> > >>> If we have so many exceptions, then sure. But eventually, the common > >>> case should be added generically with a flag so that non-generic cases > >>> (like OMAP) can request to handle the PHY by themselves. > >>> > >>> Alan ? > >> > >> I don't have very strong feelings about this; Felipe has much more > >> experience with these things. > >> > >> However, when the common case is added into the core, the simplest way > >> to indicate that the HCD wants to handle the PHY(s) by itself will be > >> to leave hcd->phy set to NULL or an ERR_PTR value. > >> > >> One important thing that hasn't been pointed out yet: When we move > >> these calls into the core, the same patch must also remove those calls > >> from the glue drivers that currently do set hcd->phy. And it must make > >> sure that the glue drivers which handle the PHY by themselves do not > >> set hcd->phy. > > > > perfect summary. Perhaps Roger could already work on private PHY handle > > for ehci-omap.c and later we can start moving generic case to usbcore > > without having to touch ehci-omap.c at all. Roger, any commetns ? > > > > This looks fine to me. I don't have anything to add.
thanks :-) -- balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
