Messages in this thread | | | From | Felipe Balbi <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 6/7] usb: xhci: plat: add generic PHY support | Date | Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:21:44 +0300 |
| |
Hi,
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> writes: >> > +static void xhci_plat_phy_exit(struct usb_hcd *hcd) >> > +{ >> > + if (hcd->phy) { >> > + phy_power_off(hcd->phy); >> > + phy_exit(hcd->phy); >> > + } else { >> > + usb_phy_shutdown(hcd->usb_phy); >> > + } >> > +} >> > + >> > static int xhci_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> > { >> > struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node; >> > @@ -145,6 +177,7 @@ static int xhci_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> > struct usb_hcd *hcd; >> > struct clk *clk; >> > struct usb_phy *usb_phy; >> > + struct phy *phy; >> >> so, one phy driver using USB PHY layer and another using generic PHY >> layer ? Why ? I think the first thing your series should do would be to > > It's different platforms. E.g > platform A may write the phy driver under usb phy layer, while platform B > may have generic phy driver.
right, but both APIs should be supported with *two* PHYs for the time being.
> The questions are: when adding phy support to xhci-plat, the generic phy > has existed for a long time, what's the reason to use the deprecated usb > phy APIs.
I don't know, ask the author :-) Maybe the PHY driver was already available on the USB PHY layer ? What we should do is push that PHY driver to be moved over to generic PHY layer, then we can get rid of USB PHY layer from xhci-plat.
> And per my check, it's only MVEBU platforms use this support? I'm not sure > if we could remove usbphy code from xhci-plat first then add generic phy then > adding MVEBU xhci phy support bak with the new code. So Cc mvebu maintainers
First the PHY driver(s) depending on that should be converted over.
-- balbi [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
| |