Re: [PATCH 2/2] phy: driver for Conexant Digicolor internal USB PHY

[Kishon Vijay Abraham I]

Hi,

On Tuesday 31 March 2015 09:11 PM, Baruch Siach wrote:
> Hi Kishon,
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 08:56:54PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 March 2015 05:04 PM, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 04:33:02PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 05:36:29 AM, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > > > > Add a driver for the USB PHY on the Conexant CX92755 SoC, from the
> > > > > Digicolor series of SoCs. The PHY is connected to the on-chip chipidea
> > > > > usb2 host.
> > > > >
> > > > > The hardware is somewhat similar to the phy-mxs-usb.c usb_phy, but it is
> > > > > different enough to merit its own driver. Also, this driver uses the
> > > > > generic phy infrastructure.
> > > >
> > > > the register set looks very similar to MXS one indeed. How is it different
> > > > please ?
> > >
> > > Almost of the bits that are defined in the MXS USBPHY_CTRL register are not
> > > defined in the Digicolor one. Some have different meaning, and some are
> > > reserved. OTOH, the Digicolor USBPHY_CTRL register uses all bits in the 1-13
> > > range. Also, the Digicolor phy does not have anatop registers.
> >
> > I think we should try adding support for this in the same driver.
>
> The only code that can actually be shared between the driver is the two lines
> usb_phy .on_connect callback routine. The init sequence that takes most of the
> digicolor driver is totally different. Using a single driver for both PHYs
> does not make much sense, IMHO.
>
> Besides, phy-mxs-usb.c uses the deprecated usb_phy framework. So we first need
> to port this driver to the generic phy framework.

Doesn't your driver also use the usb_phy framework?

-Kishon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/