Hi Sylwester,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/23/2013 01:20 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> - { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-dwc3" },
>> + { .compatible = "samsung,synopsis-dwc3" }
>
> You're both missing a point here. The synopsys I
Hi,
On 01/23/2013 01:20 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> - { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-dwc3" },
> + { .compatible = "samsung,synopsis-dwc3" }
You're both missing a point here. The synopsys IP driver is called
dwc3.ko and that's compatible with synopsys,dwc3. Your glue l
Hi all,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:04:56PM -0800, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> Hi Felipe,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > > Right, DWC has version number, but that being the kind of USB controller
>> > > (USB 2.0 and
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:04:56PM -0800, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> Hi Felipe,
>
> [...]
>
> > > Right, DWC has version number, but that being the kind of USB controller
> > > (USB 2.0 and USB 3.0)
> > >
> > > DWC2: USB High Speed controller (as also indicated in
Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi Felipe,
[...]
> > Right, DWC has version number, but that being the kind of USB controller
> > (USB 2.0 and USB 3.0)
> >
> > DWC2: USB High Speed controller (as also indicated in the patch from
> > Paul: [RFC PATCH 0/6] DWC2 DesignWare HS OTG driver)
> > DWC3: USB
On 01/22/2013 06:35 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> - { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-dwc3" },
> + { .compatible = "samsung,synopsis-dwc3" },
>
> Or if any version or something, how about following?
>
> + { .compatible = "samsung,dwc-v3" },
>
>>> Well, yes the newer
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:18:55AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> >> These two changes look good to me. For both of them:
> >>
> >> Reviewed-
Hi Kukjin,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>
>> On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> These two changes look good to me. For both of them:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, I have another idea. Yes, I kn
Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>
> On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> These two changes look good to me. For both of them:
>
> Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson
> >>>
> >>> Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be
used.
> >> But
> >>> you know the specifi
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Sylwester Nawrocki
wrote:
> On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>
> These two changes look good to me. For both of them:
>
> Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson
Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be
On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
These two changes look good to me. For both of them:
Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson
Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be used.
But
you know the specific chip name in compatible can cause another confusion
on other SoC w
Hi Kukjin,
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>
> Re-sending due to e-mail client problem...
>
>> Doug Anderson wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Vivek Gautam
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Vivek Gautam
>> > wrote:
>> >
Kukjin Kim wrote:
>
Re-sending due to e-mail client problem...
> Doug Anderson wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Vivek Gautam
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Vivek Gautam
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Grant Likely
> > >> wrote:
> >
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Vivek Gautam
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Vivek Gautam
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Grant Likely
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:22:26 +0530, Vivek Gautam
>>> wrote:
Using chip specific compatible string as it should
Hi all,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> CC: Doug Anderson
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:22:26 +0530, Vivek Gautam
>> wrote:
>>> Using chip specific compatible string as it should be.
>>> So fixing this for ehci-s
CC: Doug Anderson
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Grant Likely
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:22:26 +0530, Vivek Gautam
> wrote:
>> Using chip specific compatible string as it should be.
>> So fixing this for ehci-s5p, ohci-exynos and dwc3-exynos
>> which till now used a generic 'exynos' in
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:22:26 +0530, Vivek Gautam
wrote:
> Using chip specific compatible string as it should be.
> So fixing this for ehci-s5p, ohci-exynos and dwc3-exynos
> which till now used a generic 'exynos' in their compatible strings.
>
> This goes as per the discussion happened in the th
CC: LKML
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> Using chip specific compatible string as it should be.
> So fixing this for ehci-s5p, ohci-exynos and dwc3-exynos
> which till now used a generic 'exynos' in their compatible strings.
>
> This goes as per the discussion happened in t
Using chip specific compatible string as it should be.
So fixing this for ehci-s5p, ohci-exynos and dwc3-exynos
which till now used a generic 'exynos' in their compatible strings.
This goes as per the discussion happened in the thread for
[PATCH v2] ARM: Exynos5250: Enabling dwc3-exynos driver
ava
19 matches
Mail list logo
