Re: [RFC] usb-phy-generic: Add support to SMSC USB3315

[Peter Senna Tschudin]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:03:23PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On 4/19/2017 9:14 AM, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> 
> > We need the SMSC USB3315 clock and regulator to always be initialized.
> > We also need the PHY driver to take the PHY out of reset. This patch
> > extends the existing USB generic nop phy driver to include a new
> > initialization path.
> > 
> > A new compatible string "smsc,usb3315" is used to decide which
> > initialization path to use.
> > 
> > CC: Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxx>
> > CC: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Fabien Lahoudere <fabien.lahoudere@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 
> > This is a follow-up of previous discussion:
> >   https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg146680.html
> > 
> >  drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.h |  1 +
> >  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c
> > index 89d6e7a..6ea9ce4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c
> [...]
> > @@ -216,18 +221,29 @@ static int nop_set_host(struct usb_otg *otg, struct usb_bus *host)
> >  	otg->host = host;
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> 
>    Need empty line here.
> 
> > +int smsc_usb3315_init(struct usb_phy_generic *nop)
> > +{
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If the gpio for controlling reset state is not available, try again
> > +	 * later
> > +	 */
> > +	if(!nop->gpiod_reset)
> 
>    You hadn't run the patch thru scripts/checkpatch.pl before posting --
> need space between *if* and (.
> 
> [...]
> > @@ -304,6 +320,12 @@ int usb_phy_gen_create_phy(struct device *dev, struct usb_phy_generic *nop,
> >  	nop->phy.otg->set_host		= nop_set_host;
> >  	nop->phy.otg->set_peripheral	= nop_set_peripheral;
> > 
> > +	if(node && of_device_is_compatible(node, "smsc,usb3315")) {
> 
>    Same here.
> 
> [...]
> 
> MBR, Sergei

Thank you for the review Sergei! Should I send V2 of this RFC fixing
these issues or wait for comments on the validity of this approach?


>