On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:26 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 10:22:50AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > Just because the omap does it that way, doesn't mean it can't be done > > better ;-). > > Agreed that platform_data is a better approach overall for holding that > power budget. OMAP and AT91 should do so too. > > Sounds like someone should update the patch to (a) use a 150 mA budget, > and (b) test for those other machines. As a near term patch, anyway. > > Unless there's a patch to provide and use platform_data ... but that'd > be much more involved, since ISTR the PXA platforms don't yet have a > mechanism to provide board-specific platform_data. (I'll suggest the > AT91 code as a model there; it's simpler hardware than OMAP, so the > code is more straightforward.)
The PXA platform does have an existing mechanism to pass platform data (I added it a while back). I've added http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=3547/1 into the patch system replacing Pavel's version. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
