On Monday, January 06, 2014 at 07:20:20 AM, Inderpal Singh wrote:
On 4 January 2014 12:46, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On Friday, January 03, 2014 at 06:03:47 AM, Inderpal Singh wrote:
Hi Marek,
Thanks for the review.
On 3 January 2014 06:24, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On Thursday, January 02, 2014 at 10:41:58 AM, Inderpal Singh wrote:
From: Inderpal Singh chander.kashyap@linaro.org
The controller has 3 ports. The port0 is for USB 2.0 Phy, port1 and port2 are for HSIC phys. The usb 2.0 phy is already being setup. This patch sets up the hsic phys.
Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh inderpal.singh@linaro.org
arch/arm/include/asm/arch-exynos/ehci.h | 14 +++++++++++ drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c | 39
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+)
Is it OK to set all the ports up unconditionally ? I am not sure about exynos of course, but is it possible there are some machines which don't use the HSIC ports and this would have some kind of adverse effects on those?
I feel it should not cause any side effect as it wont interfere with the normal USB 2.0 phy port. Also, its being done along the same lines as kernel driver at drivers/usb/phy/phy-samsung-usb2.c, which also sets up
all
ports unconditionally.
OK, I won't fight this. I would be much more inclined to being able to conditionally select which ports get configured. Especially, since you do know that information from DT, dont you?
Ok, Thanks Marek. As of now DT is not providing port information.
Bah, I'd expect -- especially in case of exynos, which is targetting the mobile segment -- to focus on power consumption very much. Anyway, like I said, I won't fight this. Minkyu, what's your take on this one please?
Best regards, Marek Vasut