On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 08:33:17 -0700
David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was the original idea. I think the deal is that folk
> just copied/pasted the SA- code, which did it that
> way for no reason that's clear to me.
I did that in my driver for the tc6393xb usb function. - howeve
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 04:54:20PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 07 August 2004 15:27, Ray Lehtiniemi wrote:
>
> > you mean that when, for example, usb_hcd_sa_probe() calls
> > driver->hcd_alloc(), it should pass a pointer to struct sa_dev *dev,
> > (or the underlying struct
On Saturday 07 August 2004 15:27, Ray Lehtiniemi wrote:
> you mean that when, for example, usb_hcd_sa_probe() calls
> driver->hcd_alloc(), it should pass a pointer to struct sa_dev *dev,
> (or the underlying struct device...), and the ohci_hcd_alloc()
> routine should then take care of th
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 08:33:17AM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> >
> >why couldn't the underlying usb_hcd_irq() function be registered
> >directly with request_irq()?
>
> That was the original idea. I think the deal is that folk
> just copied/pasted the SA- code, which did it that
>
Hi Ray,
Good questions, thanks for asking them. The interfaces in that
bus glue haven't yet had that sort of "how much of this code
can we eliminate" treatment. Now that OHCI is getting lots of
support for non-PCI versions, that treatment is needed!
On Friday 06 August 2004 16:18, Ray Lehtinie
hi all
i'm digging through the USB OHCI host controller stuff, trying to
minimise the size of my ep93xx glue file. some questions i have
as i go:
- is there any reason for functions like these to exist?
ohci-omap.c:usb_hcd_omap_hcim_irq()
ohci-lh7a404.c:usb_hcd_lh7a404_hcim_irq()
