Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] usb-phy-generic: Add support to SMSC USB3315 | From | Sergei Shtylyov <> | Date | Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:23:38 +0300 |
| |
On 04/19/2017 01:24 PM, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
>>> We need the SMSC USB3315 clock and regulator to always be initialized. >>> We also need the PHY driver to take the PHY out of reset. This patch >>> extends the existing USB generic nop phy driver to include a new >>> initialization path. >>> >>> A new compatible string "smsc,usb3315" is used to decide which >>> initialization path to use. >>> >>> CC: Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com> >>> CC: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> >>> CC: Fabien Lahoudere <fabien.lahoudere@collabora.co.uk> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@collabora.com> >>> --- >>> >>> This is a follow-up of previous discussion: >>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg146680.html >>> >>> drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- >>> drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.h | 1 + >>> 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c >>> index 89d6e7a..6ea9ce4 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c >>> +++ b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c >> [...] >>> @@ -216,18 +221,29 @@ static int nop_set_host(struct usb_otg *otg, struct usb_bus *host) >>> otg->host = host; >>> return 0; >>> } >> >> Need empty line here. >> >>> +int smsc_usb3315_init(struct usb_phy_generic *nop) >>> +{ >>> + /* >>> + * If the gpio for controlling reset state is not available, try again >>> + * later >>> + */ >>> + if(!nop->gpiod_reset) >> >> You hadn't run the patch thru scripts/checkpatch.pl before posting -- >> need space between *if* and (. >> >> [...] >>> @@ -304,6 +320,12 @@ int usb_phy_gen_create_phy(struct device *dev, struct usb_phy_generic *nop, >>> nop->phy.otg->set_host = nop_set_host; >>> nop->phy.otg->set_peripheral = nop_set_peripheral; >>> >>> + if(node && of_device_is_compatible(node, "smsc,usb3315")) { >> >> Same here. >> >> [...] >> >> MBR, Sergei > > Thank you for the review Sergei! Should I send V2 of this RFC fixing > these issues or wait for comments on the validity of this approach?
Wait, of course, if this is RFC...
WBR, Sergei
| |