Hi,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:06:01PM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
> > > > > > > > right, but in DT you will define both instances and each
> > > > > > > > instance will
> > > > > > > > have a seaparate snps,maximum_speed attribute :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm now considering if
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:06:01PM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
right, but in DT you will define both instances and each
instance will
have a seaparate snps,maximum_speed attribute :-)
I'm now considering if we should make maximum_speed a generic
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:00:00PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:30:33AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
> > > > > > > right, but in DT you will define both instances and each instance
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:30:33AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
> > > > > > right, but in DT you will define both instances and each instance
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > have a seaparate snps,maximum_speed attribute
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:30:33AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
right, but in DT you will define both instances and each instance
will
have a seaparate snps,maximum_speed attribute :-)
I'm
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:00:00PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:30:33AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
right, but in DT you will define both instances and each instance
will
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
> > > > > right, but in DT you will define both instances and each instance will
> > > > > have a seaparate snps,maximum_speed attribute :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm now considering if we should make maximum_speed a generic
>
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 09:35:26AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:14:16AM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
> > > > right, but in DT you will define both instances and each instance will
> > > > have a seaparate snps,maximum_speed attribute :-)
> > > >
> > > >
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:14:16AM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
> > > right, but in DT you will define both instances and each instance will
> > > have a seaparate snps,maximum_speed attribute :-)
> > >
> > > I'm now considering if we should make maximum_speed a generic attribute,
> > >
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:46:45PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> Felipe Balbi writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:37:19PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
> >> On 6/26/2013 3:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:59:14PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:46:45PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com writes:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:37:19PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
On 6/26/2013 3:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:59:14PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
There
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:14:16AM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
right, but in DT you will define both instances and each instance will
have a seaparate snps,maximum_speed attribute :-)
I'm now considering if we should make maximum_speed a generic attribute,
Kishon ? Alex ?
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 09:35:26AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:14:16AM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
right, but in DT you will define both instances and each instance will
have a seaparate snps,maximum_speed attribute :-)
I'm now considering
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
right, but in DT you will define both instances and each instance will
have a seaparate snps,maximum_speed attribute :-)
I'm now considering if we should make maximum_speed a generic
attribute,
Felipe Balbi writes:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:37:19PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
>> On 6/26/2013 3:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:59:14PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
>> >>There can be configurations in which DWC3 is hoooked up only to USB2 PHY.
>>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:37:19PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
> On 6/26/2013 3:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:59:14PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
> >>There can be configurations in which DWC3 is hoooked up only to USB2 PHY.
> >>In such cases we should not
On 6/26/2013 3:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:59:14PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
There can be configurations in which DWC3 is hoooked up only to USB2 PHY.
In such cases we should not return -EPROBE_DEFER, rather continue probe
even if there is no USB3 PHY.
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:59:14PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
> There can be configurations in which DWC3 is hoooked up only to USB2 PHY.
> In such cases we should not return -EPROBE_DEFER, rather continue probe
> even if there is no USB3 PHY.
>
> Signed-off-by: George Cherian
> ---
>
There can be configurations in which DWC3 is hoooked up only to USB2 PHY.
In such cases we should not return -EPROBE_DEFER, rather continue probe
even if there is no USB3 PHY.
Signed-off-by: George Cherian
---
drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c | 31 ---
1 file changed, 24
There can be configurations in which DWC3 is hoooked up only to USB2 PHY.
In such cases we should not return -EPROBE_DEFER, rather continue probe
even if there is no USB3 PHY.
Signed-off-by: George Cherian george.cher...@ti.com
---
drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c | 31 ---
1
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:59:14PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
There can be configurations in which DWC3 is hoooked up only to USB2 PHY.
In such cases we should not return -EPROBE_DEFER, rather continue probe
even if there is no USB3 PHY.
Signed-off-by: George Cherian
On 6/26/2013 3:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:59:14PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
There can be configurations in which DWC3 is hoooked up only to USB2 PHY.
In such cases we should not return -EPROBE_DEFER, rather continue probe
even if there is no USB3 PHY.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:37:19PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
On 6/26/2013 3:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:59:14PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
There can be configurations in which DWC3 is hoooked up only to USB2 PHY.
In such cases we should not return
Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com writes:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:37:19PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
On 6/26/2013 3:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:59:14PM +0530, George Cherian wrote:
There can be configurations in which DWC3 is hoooked up only to USB2 PHY.
In such
24 matches
Mail list logo