Hi,
On 26 June 2014 03:21, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On Thursday, June 26, 2014 at 06:46:11 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
Hi Simon, Marek,
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Vivek Gautam gautam.vivek@samsung.com wrote:
sorry for spamming, the earlier message got sent by mistake.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Marek,
On 25 June 2014 02:33, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 08:27:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote: [...]
> > > model. Instead, I'd love to see a mean to instantiate each *HCI > > > controller and have a USB core which would track those > > > instances. The USB core would then be able to call whatever > > > generic ops on those instances as needed. Does that make sense > > > please ? > > > > True, i understand your point here. I think the second approach i > > was talking of, goes in this direction. > > I think i could not put it well in words there. > > > > I will prepare an RFC patch for that, and post it as soon as its > > ready, so that you can have > > a look. > > Ah, this would be so very appreciated! Thank you!
Should we consider just going straight for driver model?
I was thinking about that, but I'm worried it might break USB support on some platforms. Also, the size of U-Boot will grow on many platforms, right?
What do you think ?
If you add CONFIG_DM_USB as an option, you can then pull in either usb-uclass.c or the old usb code. Since USB is often tied to a board then you can move just that board (or group of boards) to dm.
I am keeping a working tree in u-boot-dm.git which does this for serial, SPI, SPI flash and GPIO. It seems to work fairly well as a technique for keeping both things in the tree in the interim..
Ok, so i am having a look at the u-boot-dm tree, and also going through the documentation for driver-model. The driver-model looks a promising choice at the moment keeping in mind that later we would need to move to it anyways.
I will try understanding the things and raise a flag in case something is not clear.
Even better, if I don't have to do this myself :) I'm really glad to see how many people put effort into the USB and how things are coming together nicely. Thank you guys!
Please note I have updated the 'working' branch. A parent device (such as a SPI bus or USB bus) can now have private data for each of its children. This was useful for SPI and may be useful for USB.
Regards, Simon