Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] Add support for USB OTG on STM32F7 | From | Alexandre Torgue <> | Date | Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:46:14 +0200 |
| |
Hi Felipe
On 10/12/2017 10:43 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/11/2017 12:04 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@st.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> The STM32F7 MCU family embeds two DWC2 USB OTG cores. One core is >>>>>>>>> USB >>>>>>>>> OTG FS and the other is USB OTG HS. The USB FS core only works >>>>>>>>> with its >>>>>>>>> internal phy whilst the USB HS core can work in HS with external >>>>>>>>> ULPI phy >>>>>>>>> or in FS/LS with the on-chip FS phy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay (7): >>>>>>>>> dt-bindings: usb: Document the STM32F7 DWC2 USB OTG HS core >>>>>>>>> binding >>>>>>>>> usb: dwc2: add support for STM32F7 USB OTG HS >>>>>>>>> ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have applied these three patches. Should I take the rest? They >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> like they could go upstream through the ARM maintainers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will take other DT patches in my PR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Concerning "ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU" >>>>>>> patch >>>>>>> I prefer also to take it. This patch adds some pinctrl groups but >>>>>>> stm32 >>>>>>> pinctrl bindings will change in my next PR (we will use a macro to >>>>>>> define pins instead of using defined values). So if you push the DT >>>>>>> patch through your pull request there will be a merge issue. >>>>>>> It is possible that I take also this one ? >>>>>> >>>>>> In that case, it's best if you take them all :-) Here's my Ack: >>>>>> >>>>>> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll drop them from my tree now >>>>> >>>>> Ok perfect, I will take DT patches (3 to 7) and I let you take patch 1&2 >>>>> in your tree. >>>> >>>> Well, I have dropped them from my tree. Please two 1-7 through yours. >>> >>> Hum, ok for this patchset but IMO it is better (next time) that you take >>> driver pacthes in your tree and I take only DT patches in mine. >>> No ? >>> >>> Regards >>> Alex >>> >>>> >> >> I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be >> applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be >> applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something? > > patch 1 is documentation, right? Without the documentation patch, > checkpatch will cringe :-) So either way works. > > If you insist, I can take 1-2 through my tree. No worries.
I don't want to insist :) but for me it is better (and more safe) if you take patch 1&2 in your tree, and will take others in mine.
Thanks in advance. Alex
> > let me know >
| |