Hi Igor, 2011/12/15 Igor Grinberg <grinb...@compulab.co.il>: >>>> Where does it say that only this one is supported in the code? >>> >>> You mean comments or the code? >> >> Well the filename seems generic and not specific to that chip. Are >> viewports something that other chips can support? > > Let me clarify: > 1) It is not the chip it is the controller (IP block) inside the SoC. > 2) viewport is just the register name inside the SoC that provides > and interface of the controller to access the ULPI PHY. > > I think every SoC that uses that controller has the viewport setup > this way, but I might be wrong (and that's why the viewport is > separated from the generic ULPI spec implementation). > > Regarding the name... yeah it could be renamed, but it follows Linux > naming currently and it is the first one submitted, > so IMO it can be named that generically. > >> >> COBJS-$(CONFIG_USB_ULPI) += ulpi.o >> COBJS-$(CONFIG_USB_ULPI_VIEWPORT) += ulpi-viewport.o >> >> It would be good if you could mention the two new CONFIG options in the >> README. > > I did, see below... > >> >>> >>>> What is specific to that device? >>> >>> The viewport bits? It is not a part of the ULPI spec. >>> Other vendors do not have to comply with those. >>> For example PXA310 has those bits placed and named in some other way... >> >> OK I didn't realise that. > > I think same stand for OMAP, but I'm not sure. > OMAP still does arbitrary register writes for accessing ULPI. > >> >>>>> + To enable the ULPI layer support, define CONFIG_USB_ULPI >>>>> and >>>>> + CONFIG_USB_ULPI_VIEWPORT in your board configuration file. > > Here the configs are documented. > I admit, it is not that brilliant documentation...
Are you planning to post an update of this patch? The rest of the series I already pulled into the USB tree. Kind regards, Remy _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot