Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:13:57 +0530 | From | George Cherian <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add phy support for AM335X platform using Generic PHy framework |
| |
On 7/10/2013 10:53 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:26:25AM +0530, George Cherian wrote: >> On 7/9/2013 5:05 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tuesday 09 July 2013 11:10 AM, George Cherian wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2013 1:14 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>>>> On 07/08/2013 12:43 PM, George Cherian wrote: >>>>>> This patch series adds phy support for AM335X platform. >>>>>> This patch series is based on Generic PHY framework [1]. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This series has >>>>>> - adds dual musb instances support for am335x platform (just for testing) >>>>>> - adds phy-amxxxx-usb driver used in AMxxxx platforms >>>>>> - adds dt bindings for the phys >>>>>> - removes usb-phy and replaced with generic phy apis in glue layer >>>>> No, I don't like this all. You did the one thing I tried to avoid while >>>>> posting my quick-and-dirty phy driver recently: You duplicated a lot of >>>>> code which can be served by the nop driver and added only power >>>>> on/power off callbacks. >>>> I wanted to add phy wakeup control also, but currently phy_ops dont have an op >>>> for wkup_ctrl >>>> Kishon, Can we add one? >>> Since this should be a capability of the PHY, can't we have wkup_ctrl always >>> enabled if the PHY has such a capability? >> No, we cant have wakeup always enabled. Normally we enable it only >> when we go to low power states and >> if the user needs USB a wakeup source. >> >> So how about enable/disable phy wakeup from phy suspend/resume? > you should use something like so on your ->suspend() or > ->runtime_suspend() method > > static int my_phy_{suspend,runtime_suspend}(struct device *dev) > { > struct my_phy *phy = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) > my_phy_enable_wakeup(phy); > > return 0; > }
Makes sense. will do it in v2. >>> or if it needs more user control, >>> should we implement a sysfs entry to enable wakeup? > that already exists ;-) >
-- -George
| |