On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:21:47PM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Frankly, I am not even sure why the mode needs to be supplied by the board at
> all.
> The musb code already has a very similar switch in musb_plat and so it
> totally looks like
> a duplicated specification of the same thing from the board file and from
> generic musb code where the original init value is then ignored.
>
> I see that in .29 the board file did not need to specify usb mode and it was
> all decided
> in musb-specific code, and I have no idea why that was later changed to the
> way it is now.
>
> Would it just be better if a patch removing mode field from struct
> omap_musb_board_data
> is adopted like this (warning - not a real patch)?
Hmm, it looks to me like we're ending up with two layers on top of
each other, both trying to provide some kind of generic board interface.
I think they should be squashed together. And that:
static struct musb_hdrc_platform_data musb_plat = {
#ifdef CONFIG_USB_MUSB_OTG
.mode = MUSB_OTG,
#elif defined(CONFIG_USB_MUSB_HDRC_HCD)
.mode = MUSB_HOST,
#elif defined(CONFIG_USB_GADGET_MUSB_HDRC)
.mode = MUSB_PERIPHERAL,
#endif
in usb-musb.c needs the same treatment as I mentioned in the previous
message if it really is board specific. If not, I see no reason why
the above can't go into the musb driver itself.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
