Re: Microchip USB Hub Driver Harmonization
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Date: Wed May 17 2017 - 12:02:04 EST
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:58:38PM +0200, Richard Leitner wrote:
> due to the fact (all?) the Microchip (former SMSC) USB hubs share the
> same I2C configuration interface, I'm currently working on harmonizing
> those USB Hub drivers. Currently this affects the usb251xb, usb3503 and
> usb4604 drivers. To avoid preventable efforts (and patch versions) I
> have some question on the preferred implementation:
> 1. Currently usb251xb uses i2c_smbus_*, usb3503 uses regmap_* and
> usb4604 uses i2c_master_* functions for the hub configuration. What
> would be the preferred solution?
regmap? It is already widely used for I2C drivers. I think most (or even
all?) new I2C drivers use regmap. It hides the real bus between common
> 2. What would be a good prefix for common headers/functions/macros/etc.?
> I thought of "mcusbhub"... Would that be OK? Or are there any
> conventions/better proposals on that?
If you are going to develop one driver for entire family, then you could
even choose just one name. Let's say the most generic.
I don't quite understand the meaning behind "harmonizing drivers".
> 3. Currently only usb3503 supports "platform data". Is this still needed
> or may it be removed?
I think it is still used, e.g. by: