Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:04:56PM -0800, Kukjin Kim wrote:
Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
Hi Felipe,
[...]
Right, DWC has version number, but that being the kind of USB controller
(USB 2.0 and USB 3.0)
DWC2: USB High Speed controller (as also indicated in the patch from
Paul: [RFC PATCH 0/6] DWC2 DesignWare HS OTG driver)
DWC3: USB Super Speed controller
Is it fine if we use something like shown below, as suggested by you
earlier ?
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 }
You're both missing a point here. The synopsys IP driver is called
dwc3.ko and that's compatible with synopsys,dwc3. Your glue layer driver
(dwc3-exynos.ko) is compatible with your platform, so
samsung,exynos-dwc3 sounds correct to me.
Hmm...yeah, you're right and agreed.
However, we need to use more clear name there like samsung,exynos-dwusb3
in compatible, because you know there are lots of other IPs in Synopsis
Design Ware brand. So we have to include usb in compatible for that.
fair enough.
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
Hi all,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:04:56PM -0800, Kukjin Kim wrote:
Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
Hi Felipe,
[...]
Right, DWC has version number, but that being the kind of USB controller
(USB 2.0 and USB 3.0)
DWC2: USB High Speed controller (as also indicated in the patch from
Paul: [RFC PATCH 0/6] DWC2 DesignWare HS OTG driver)
DWC3: USB Super Speed controller
Is it fine if we use something like shown below, as suggested by you
earlier ?
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 }
You're both missing a point here. The synopsys IP driver is called
dwc3.ko and that's compatible with synopsys,dwc3. Your glue layer driver
(dwc3-exynos.ko) is compatible with your platform, so
samsung,exynos-dwc3 sounds correct to me.
Hmm...yeah, you're right and agreed.
However, we need to use more clear name there like samsung,exynos-dwusb3
in compatible, because you know there are lots of other IPs in Synopsis
Design Ware brand. So we have to include usb in compatible for that.
fair enough.
Thanks for your suggestions. This definitely make things clear.
I shall then keep samsung,exynos-dwusb3 as the compatible string or,
should i be including '5250' string as well, something like
samsung,exynos5250-dwusb3
as pointed out by Grant earlier ? :-O
--
Thanks Regards
Vivek
--
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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
Hi,
On 01/23/2013 01:20 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 }
You're both missing a point here. The synopsys IP driver is called
dwc3.ko and that's compatible with synopsys,dwc3. Your glue layer driver
(dwc3-exynos.ko) is compatible with your platform, so
samsung,exynos-dwc3 sounds correct to me.
Hmm...yeah, you're right and agreed.
However, we need to use more clear name there like samsung,exynos-dwusb3
in compatible, because you know there are lots of other IPs in Synopsis
Design Ware brand. So we have to include usb in compatible for that.
fair enough.
Thanks for your suggestions. This definitely make things clear.
I shall then keep samsung,exynos-dwusb3 as the compatible string or,
should i be including '5250' string as well, something like
samsung,exynos5250-dwusb3
as pointed out by Grant earlier ? :-O
IMHO this needs to be samsung,exynos5250-dwusb3, rather than
samsung,exynos-dwusb3. :)
--
Thanks,
Sylwester
--
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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
Hi Sylwester,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki
s.nawro...@samsung.com wrote:
Hi,
On 01/23/2013 01:20 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 }
You're both missing a point here. The synopsys IP driver is called
dwc3.ko and that's compatible with synopsys,dwc3. Your glue layer driver
(dwc3-exynos.ko) is compatible with your platform, so
samsung,exynos-dwc3 sounds correct to me.
Hmm...yeah, you're right and agreed.
However, we need to use more clear name there like samsung,exynos-dwusb3
in compatible, because you know there are lots of other IPs in Synopsis
Design Ware brand. So we have to include usb in compatible for that.
fair enough.
Thanks for your suggestions. This definitely make things clear.
I shall then keep samsung,exynos-dwusb3 as the compatible string or,
should i be including '5250' string as well, something like
samsung,exynos5250-dwusb3
as pointed out by Grant earlier ? :-O
IMHO this needs to be samsung,exynos5250-dwusb3, rather than
samsung,exynos-dwusb3. :)
Alright, thanks.
I shall update this patch. :)
--
Thanks Regards
Vivek
--
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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:18:55AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Kukjin Kim kgene@samsung.com wrote:
Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
These two changes look good to me. For both of them:
Reviewed-by: Doug Andersondiand...@chromium.org
Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be
used.
But
you know the specific chip name in compatible can cause another
confusion
on other SoC which has same IP. So I think, we need to consider to use
common name or any specific name not chip in compatible for IP/driver
like
following?
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 },
Or if any version or something, how about following?
+ { .compatible = samsung,dwc-v3 },
Well, yes the newer SoCs with same IP using the chip name can cause some
confusion, but won't it be fine that -
Newer parts using the same core can claim compatibility by
including the older string in the compatible list - as quoted by Grant
Likely
Or, can we try another option, using multiple compatible strings for
SoC specific
in of_match_table, so that we don't create any confusion by using same
compatible for newer SoCs also. Like,
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,exynos5250-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible =new SoC using same IP },
Yes, why not just use an SoC name where given IP first appeared ? I
believe
IP revision numbers are not always well documented. Also when an IP is
instantiated multiple times in specific SoC, its revision number might not
be sufficient to determine the system integration details for each
instance.
I think having version for some devices and SoC name for others just adds
to the confusion. Thus using specific chip name in the compatible property
seems more clear to me.
Well, I don't think so. Let's see the DMAC PL330. Its compatible is
arm,pl330 and arm,primecell not SoC/Chip name. I think DWC is a same
case or at least similar.
You know, the DWC is a IP from Synopsis and I _Believe_ it has a kind of
version and it can be used for identify.
Right, DWC has version number, but that being the kind of USB controller
(USB 2.0 and USB 3.0)
DWC2: USB High Speed controller (as also indicated in the patch from
Paul: [RFC PATCH 0/6] DWC2 DesignWare HS OTG driver)
DWC3: USB Super Speed controller
Is it fine if we use something like shown below, as suggested by you earlier ?
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 }
You're both missing a point here. The synopsys IP driver is called
dwc3.ko and that's compatible with synopsys,dwc3. Your glue layer driver
(dwc3-exynos.ko) is compatible with your platform, so
samsung,exynos-dwc3 sounds correct to me.
The glue layer is just to abstract away the integration details of the
IP core into a specific platform.
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
On 01/22/2013 06:35 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 },
Or if any version or something, how about following?
+ { .compatible = samsung,dwc-v3 },
Well, yes the newer SoCs with same IP using the chip name can cause some
confusion, but won't it be fine that -
Newer parts using the same core can claim compatibility by
including the older string in the compatible list - as quoted by Grant
Likely
Or, can we try another option, using multiple compatible strings for
SoC specific
in of_match_table, so that we don't create any confusion by using same
compatible for newer SoCs also. Like,
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,exynos5250-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible =new SoC using same IP },
Yes, why not just use an SoC name where given IP first appeared ? I
believe
IP revision numbers are not always well documented. Also when an IP is
instantiated multiple times in specific SoC, its revision number might not
be sufficient to determine the system integration details for each
instance.
I think having version for some devices and SoC name for others just adds
to the confusion. Thus using specific chip name in the compatible property
seems more clear to me.
Well, I don't think so. Let's see the DMAC PL330. Its compatible is
arm,pl330 and arm,primecell not SoC/Chip name. I think DWC is a same
case or at least similar.
You know, the DWC is a IP from Synopsis and I _Believe_ it has a kind of
version and it can be used for identify.
That's a good point, but isn't DesignWare just a name of a family of IP
cores from Synopsys [1] ? And what would DWC be supposed to signify ?
DesignWare Controller ? Wouldn't that be too generic ? Synopsys seems
to offer multiple different controllers and any of them could eventually
end up in a specific SoC [2].
Maybe the compatible property should be something like:
compatible = samsung,exynos5250-dwc-3, synopsys,dw-usb-3;
or
compatible = samsung,exynos5250-usb3, synopsys,dw-ss-usb3;
? Or anything more specific in the synopsys part to indicate which
exactly USB controller IP is used ?
[1] http://www.synopsys.com/IP/InterfaceIP/USB/Pages/default.aspx
[2] http://www.synopsys.com/IP/InterfaceIP/Pages/default.aspx
--
Regards,
Sylwester
--
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
RE: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
Hi Felipe,
[...]
Right, DWC has version number, but that being the kind of USB controller
(USB 2.0 and USB 3.0)
DWC2: USB High Speed controller (as also indicated in the patch from
Paul: [RFC PATCH 0/6] DWC2 DesignWare HS OTG driver)
DWC3: USB Super Speed controller
Is it fine if we use something like shown below, as suggested by you
earlier ?
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 }
You're both missing a point here. The synopsys IP driver is called
dwc3.ko and that's compatible with synopsys,dwc3. Your glue layer driver
(dwc3-exynos.ko) is compatible with your platform, so
samsung,exynos-dwc3 sounds correct to me.
Hmm...yeah, you're right and agreed.
However, we need to use more clear name there like samsung,exynos-dwusb3
in compatible, because you know there are lots of other IPs in Synopsis
Design Ware brand. So we have to include usb in compatible for that.
The glue layer is just to abstract away the integration details of the
IP core into a specific platform.
Right.
Thanks.
- Kukjin
--
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
RE: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
These two changes look good to me. For both of them:
Reviewed-by: Doug Andersondiand...@chromium.org
Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be
used.
But
you know the specific chip name in compatible can cause another
confusion
on other SoC which has same IP. So I think, we need to consider to use
common name or any specific name not chip in compatible for IP/driver
like
following?
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 },
Or if any version or something, how about following?
+ { .compatible = samsung,dwc-v3 },
Well, yes the newer SoCs with same IP using the chip name can cause some
confusion, but won't it be fine that -
Newer parts using the same core can claim compatibility by
including the older string in the compatible list - as quoted by Grant
Likely
Or, can we try another option, using multiple compatible strings for
SoC specific
in of_match_table, so that we don't create any confusion by using same
compatible for newer SoCs also. Like,
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,exynos5250-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible =new SoC using same IP },
Yes, why not just use an SoC name where given IP first appeared ? I
believe
IP revision numbers are not always well documented. Also when an IP is
instantiated multiple times in specific SoC, its revision number might not
be sufficient to determine the system integration details for each
instance.
I think having version for some devices and SoC name for others just adds
to the confusion. Thus using specific chip name in the compatible property
seems more clear to me.
Well, I don't think so. Let's see the DMAC PL330. Its compatible is
arm,pl330 and arm,primecell not SoC/Chip name. I think DWC is a same
case or at least similar.
You know, the DWC is a IP from Synopsis and I _Believe_ it has a kind of
version and it can be used for identify.
Thanks.
- Kukjin
--
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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
Hi Kukjin,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Kukjin Kim kgene@samsung.com wrote:
Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
These two changes look good to me. For both of them:
Reviewed-by: Doug Andersondiand...@chromium.org
Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be
used.
But
you know the specific chip name in compatible can cause another
confusion
on other SoC which has same IP. So I think, we need to consider to use
common name or any specific name not chip in compatible for IP/driver
like
following?
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 },
Or if any version or something, how about following?
+ { .compatible = samsung,dwc-v3 },
Well, yes the newer SoCs with same IP using the chip name can cause some
confusion, but won't it be fine that -
Newer parts using the same core can claim compatibility by
including the older string in the compatible list - as quoted by Grant
Likely
Or, can we try another option, using multiple compatible strings for
SoC specific
in of_match_table, so that we don't create any confusion by using same
compatible for newer SoCs also. Like,
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,exynos5250-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible =new SoC using same IP },
Yes, why not just use an SoC name where given IP first appeared ? I
believe
IP revision numbers are not always well documented. Also when an IP is
instantiated multiple times in specific SoC, its revision number might not
be sufficient to determine the system integration details for each
instance.
I think having version for some devices and SoC name for others just adds
to the confusion. Thus using specific chip name in the compatible property
seems more clear to me.
Well, I don't think so. Let's see the DMAC PL330. Its compatible is
arm,pl330 and arm,primecell not SoC/Chip name. I think DWC is a same
case or at least similar.
You know, the DWC is a IP from Synopsis and I _Believe_ it has a kind of
version and it can be used for identify.
Right, DWC has version number, but that being the kind of USB controller
(USB 2.0 and USB 3.0)
DWC2: USB High Speed controller (as also indicated in the patch from
Paul: [RFC PATCH 0/6] DWC2 DesignWare HS OTG driver)
DWC3: USB Super Speed controller
Is it fine if we use something like shown below, as suggested by you earlier ?
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 }
--
Thanks Regards
Vivek
--
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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Sylwester Nawrocki
sylvester.nawro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
These two changes look good to me. For both of them:
Reviewed-by: Doug Andersondiand...@chromium.org
Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be
used.
But
you know the specific chip name in compatible can cause another
confusion
on other SoC which has same IP. So I think, we need to consider to use
common name or any specific name not chip in compatible for IP/driver
like
following?
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 },
Or if any version or something, how about following?
+ { .compatible = samsung,dwc-v3 },
Well, yes the newer SoCs with same IP using the chip name can cause some
confusion, but won't it be fine that -
Newer parts using the same core can claim compatibility by
including the older string in the compatible list - as quoted by Grant
Likely
Or, can we try another option, using multiple compatible strings for
SoC specific
in of_match_table, so that we don't create any confusion by using same
compatible for newer SoCs also. Like,
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,exynos5250-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible =new SoC using same IP },
Yes, why not just use an SoC name where given IP first appeared ? I believe
IP revision numbers are not always well documented. Also when an IP is
instantiated multiple times in specific SoC, its revision number might not
be sufficient to determine the system integration details for each instance.
I think having version for some devices and SoC name for others just adds
to the confusion. Thus using specific chip name in the compatible property
seems more clear to me.
Ping !!
--
Thanks Regards
Vivek
--
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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
These two changes look good to me. For both of them:
Reviewed-by: Doug Andersondiand...@chromium.org
Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be used.
But
you know the specific chip name in compatible can cause another confusion
on other SoC which has same IP. So I think, we need to consider to use
common name or any specific name not chip in compatible for IP/driver like
following?
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,synopsis-dwc3 },
Or if any version or something, how about following?
+ { .compatible = samsung,dwc-v3 },
Well, yes the newer SoCs with same IP using the chip name can cause some
confusion, but won't it be fine that -
Newer parts using the same core can claim compatibility by
including the older string in the compatible list - as quoted by Grant Likely
Or, can we try another option, using multiple compatible strings for
SoC specific
in of_match_table, so that we don't create any confusion by using same
compatible for newer SoCs also. Like,
- { .compatible = samsung,exynos-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible = samsung,exynos5250-dwc3 },
+ { .compatible =new SoC using same IP },
Yes, why not just use an SoC name where given IP first appeared ? I believe
IP revision numbers are not always well documented. Also when an IP is
instantiated multiple times in specific SoC, its revision number might not
be sufficient to determine the system integration details for each instance.
I think having version for some devices and SoC name for others just adds
to the confusion. Thus using specific chip name in the compatible property
seems more clear to me.
--
Thanks,
Sylwester
--
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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
Hi all, On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Vivek Gautam gautamvivek1...@gmail.com wrote: CC: Doug Anderson On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:22:26 +0530, Vivek Gautam gautam.vi...@samsung.com wrote: Using chip specific compatible string as it should be. So fixing this for ehci-s5p, ohci-exynos and dwc3-exynos which till now used a generic 'exynos' in their compatible strings. This goes as per the discussion happened in the thread for [PATCH v2] ARM: Exynos5250: Enabling dwc3-exynos driver available at: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg74145.html Vivek Gautam (2): usb: ehci-s5p/ohci-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device usb: dwc3-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device for both patches: Acked-by: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca Any more thought about this patch-set? Or does this change seems fine? drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c |2 +- drivers/usb/host/ehci-s5p.c|2 +- drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c |2 +- 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 1.7.6.5 -- Grant Likely, B.Sc, P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies, Ltd. -- 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 -- Thanks Regards Vivek -- Thanks Regards Vivek -- 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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
CC: Doug Anderson On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:22:26 +0530, Vivek Gautam gautam.vi...@samsung.com wrote: Using chip specific compatible string as it should be. So fixing this for ehci-s5p, ohci-exynos and dwc3-exynos which till now used a generic 'exynos' in their compatible strings. This goes as per the discussion happened in the thread for [PATCH v2] ARM: Exynos5250: Enabling dwc3-exynos driver available at: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg74145.html Vivek Gautam (2): usb: ehci-s5p/ohci-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device usb: dwc3-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device for both patches: Acked-by: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c |2 +- drivers/usb/host/ehci-s5p.c|2 +- drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c |2 +- 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 1.7.6.5 -- Grant Likely, B.Sc, P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies, Ltd. -- 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 -- Thanks Regards Vivek -- 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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:22:26 +0530, Vivek Gautam gautam.vi...@samsung.com wrote: Using chip specific compatible string as it should be. So fixing this for ehci-s5p, ohci-exynos and dwc3-exynos which till now used a generic 'exynos' in their compatible strings. This goes as per the discussion happened in the thread for [PATCH v2] ARM: Exynos5250: Enabling dwc3-exynos driver available at: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg74145.html Vivek Gautam (2): usb: ehci-s5p/ohci-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device usb: dwc3-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device for both patches: Acked-by: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c |2 +- drivers/usb/host/ehci-s5p.c|2 +- drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c |2 +- 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 1.7.6.5 -- Grant Likely, B.Sc, P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies, Ltd. -- 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
[PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
Using chip specific compatible string as it should be. So fixing this for ehci-s5p, ohci-exynos and dwc3-exynos which till now used a generic 'exynos' in their compatible strings. This goes as per the discussion happened in the thread for [PATCH v2] ARM: Exynos5250: Enabling dwc3-exynos driver available at: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg74145.html Vivek Gautam (2): usb: ehci-s5p/ohci-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device usb: dwc3-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c |2 +- drivers/usb/host/ehci-s5p.c|2 +- drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c |2 +- 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 1.7.6.5 -- 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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device
CC: LKML On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Vivek Gautam gautam.vi...@samsung.com wrote: Using chip specific compatible string as it should be. So fixing this for ehci-s5p, ohci-exynos and dwc3-exynos which till now used a generic 'exynos' in their compatible strings. This goes as per the discussion happened in the thread for [PATCH v2] ARM: Exynos5250: Enabling dwc3-exynos driver available at: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg74145.html Vivek Gautam (2): usb: ehci-s5p/ohci-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device usb: dwc3-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c |2 +- drivers/usb/host/ehci-s5p.c|2 +- drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c |2 +- 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 1.7.6.5 -- 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 -- Thanks Regards Vivek -- 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
