Hi,
On 23-09-15 22:59, Bin Liu wrote:
Hi,
On 09/23/2015 02:53 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 23-09-15 19:10, Bin Liu wrote:
Hi,
On 09/22/2015 04:18 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 02:31:18PM -0500, Bin Liu wrote:
Hi,
On 09/22/2015 09:40 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:50:56AM -0500, Bin Liu wrote:
Some USB phy drivers have different handling for the controller in
each
dr_mode. But the phy driver does not have visibility to the
dr_mode of
the controller.
This adds an api to return the dr_mode of the controller which
associates the given phy node.
Signed-off-by: Bin Liu <b-...@ti.com>
doesn't apply anymore. Probably because of Heikki's series which I
just
added to testing/next.
Please rebase there.
I have to rewrite my patch. Before Heikki's patch
of_usb_get_dr_mode() takes
parameter 'struct *device_node', but now usb_get_dr_mode() takes
parameter
'struct *device'. The logic in my patch iterates over of nodes, I am
not
sure how to get the 'struct *device' from a of node yet...
okay.
There is no way to get the 'struct *device' to the controller in the
phy driver, because the controller device might not be registered yet
by the time the phy probe is called.
So I have to put back the implementation of the removed
of_usb_get_dr_mode() into this new of_usb_get_dr_mode_by_phy()
function. Please let me know if this is acceptable then I will send
the v5.
Sounds to me like it is better to revert the API change / removal of
of_usb_get_dr_mode()
as a separate patch and then stick with your v4 patch.
+1
If you agree, then the best way to do this is probably to send a patch
series with the actual revert + your v4 patch. Probably best to call
that series v5.
Regards,
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
