* Roger Quadros <rog...@ti.com> [130313 06:46]: > On 03/12/2013 06:40 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Roger Quadros <rog...@ti.com> [130312 04:47]: > >> Hi Tony, > >> > >> These patches provide the SoC side code required to support > >> the changes in the OMAP USB Host drivers done in [1], [2] & [3]. > > ... > > > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-3430sdp.c | 97 +++++++++++++++- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-3630sdp.c | 100 +++++++++++++++- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-am3517crane.c | 95 +++++++++++++-- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-am3517evm.c | 66 ++++++++++- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-cm-t35.c | 95 ++++++++++++++- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-cm-t3517.c | 97 +++++++++++++++- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-devkit8000.c | 20 ++-- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c | 67 +++++++++++ > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-igep0020.c | 112 > >> ++++++++++++++++--- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3beagle.c | 93 +++++++++++++-- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3evm.c | 62 ++++++++-- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3pandora.c | 52 +++++++-- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3stalker.c | 52 +++++++- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3touchbook.c | 62 +++++++++- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap4panda.c | 122 > >> ++++++++++++++------ > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-overo.c | 54 ++++++++- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-zoom.c | 56 ++++++++- > > > > Can't you have some mach-omap2/ehci-common.c that takes care > > of the initializiation to avoid this much addition to the > > board-*.c files? You may be able to have just a common function > > to do it and pass few parameters? > > Since we moved reset and power handling for the USB PHYs from omap-echi > driver into the USB PHY driver we need to define the regulator data > for RESET and Power line of each PHY. So most of the code added is just > regulator data for the PHY rather than omap-ehci.
It seems that you're now repeating minor variations of the same PHY over and over again though. > Instead of a common function, I can implement some macros that make it > easier to define the regulators for the PHY in the board files. > Does this sound OK? > > Personally I don't like such macros because it hides the implementation > and is difficult to read/debug. I'd prefer a common function to initialize the PHY though as it sounds like using macros would just allocate similar PHY many times which seems unnecessary. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
