On 03/12/2014 12:08 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
Hi Denis,
Hi,
As you add me in the From field, you also need to add:
Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.este...@freescale.com> above your
Signed-off-by line.
Thanks.
+ usbphy {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+ compatible = "simple-bus";
I made this comment earlier: why do we place usbphy0/1 under simple-bus?
The official ePAPR 1.1 standard talks about the system on a chip's
internal I/O bus.
So, I wonder if, in general, it makes sense to group together, with a
simple-bus compatible, potentially different usb phy, which are
connected to potentially different usb controllers.
Still if I remove it from the usbphy node, I get the following messages
more than once in dmesg:
> ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no usb2 phy configured
> platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral
> ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no usb2 phy configured
> platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral
With at the end lsusb printing nothing.
This is not documented in the the bindings.
I don't think that the simple-bus has to be added to
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-nop-xceiv.txt because that
file only talks about what became usbphy's subnodes.
Denis.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
