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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Hi Kukjin,
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Kukjin Kim kgene@samsung.com wrote:
Kukjin Kim wrote:
Re-sending due to e-mail client problem...
Doug Anderson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Vivek Gautam
gautamvivek1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM,
Kukjin Kim wrote:
Re-sending due to e-mail client problem...
Doug Anderson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Vivek Gautam
gautamvivek1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Vivek Gautam
gautamvivek1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM,
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
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Vivek Gautam
gautamvivek1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Vivek Gautam gautamvivek1...@gmail.com
wrote:
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
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
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
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
