Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 07 May 2014 11:21:58 +0200 | From | Sebastian Hesselbarth <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 00/20] USB support for Armada 38x and Armada 375 |
| |
[Adding back the original Cc-List]
On 05/07/2014 10:33 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Gregory, > > Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement <at> free-electrons.com> writes: > >> This patch set adds the USB support for the Armada 38x Armada >> 375. These SoCs use an xHCI but still need specific initialization, >> mainly to setup the windows memory on the mbus. They also use the same >> controller that the other mvebu SoC for EHCI. > > <snip> > >> Gregory CLEMENT (20): >> usb: ehci-orion: Fix clock reference leaking >> usb: ehci-orion: Add the optional PHY support > > If you're using a proper phy driver, do you really need a soc specific ehci > driver? I've spend a lot of time during the last release cycle to make > ehci-platform a lot more generic, including adding (optional) phy support to > it. It would be great if the new Armada SoCs could use ehci-platform instead > of extending ehci-orion to cover more models (ideally most ehci-foo drivers > would go away completely). I've no idea how feasible it is to use > ehci-platform in your case, but IMHO it should at least be considered.
Hans,
unfortunately we currently have no USB-PHY driver for the other mvebu SoCs. I have started some code grabbing for barebox bootloader and plan to add proper USB-PHYs for Linux later.
There is one thing very specific to mvebu SoCs, which is the mbus: you need to setup upstream memory windows for the usb bus master. From my current understanding, that will require at least a minimal stub to remain for ehci-orion.
I do think that most of the stuff in ehci-orion can (and should) be replaced with ehci-platform then. So, we definitely consider reusing the generic foo-platform drivers on all opportunities but IMHO we are not yet ready for it.
Sebastian
| |