Re: [PATCH 06/16] usb: musb: dsps: rename ti81xx_driver_data to am33xx_driver_data

From: Bin Liu
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 - 11:12:42 EST


On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Bin Liu | 2013-07-23 13:23:57 [-0500]:
>>Hi Sebastian,
> Hi Liu,
>>On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <
>>bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> This patch renames the type struct from ti81xx_driver_data to
>>> am33xx_driver_data since it is not used for ti81xx anymore. The EOI
>>> member is also removed since the am33xx SoC does not have such register.
>>> The interrupt is acknowledged by writting into the stat register.
>>I guess the EOI register is removed from the TRM because AM33xx does not
>>use it, there is no need to write to it to acknowledge. It does not hurt to
>>write to it though since the register still exists, it just does nothing, I
> Is it really there or was it never there and it has been added to TRM by
> accident?
The EOI register IS in the USB subsystem of AM33xx, but the SoC does
not use it because it uses level triggering for USB interrupt.

>>But I am not sure if it is a good idea to remove eoi from the musb_dsps
>>driver. If the intension is to merge the support for other SoC, such as
>>AM35xx, AM18xx, then EOI handling might be still needed. I just don't know
>>how those devices use EOI.
> If one of the architectures gets added which need an EOI then the offset
> can be 0 and the EOI will happen only if it is != 0.
This patch cleaned up the use of EOI. Do you mean EOI handling will be
added back with condition EOI offset != 0, when the support of new
device which uses EIO is added?


> Sebastian
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at