[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5 v13] arm: omap: usb: ehci and ohci hwmod structures for omap4
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Felipe Balbi wrote:

> > > It doesn't shown here, but the TLL link is completely optional. It's
> > > mainly used for modem integration, IIRC. Still, if we're using TLL, EHCI
> > > and OHCI will depend on a clock provided by the USBTLL block.
> > >
> > > Clearly, USBTLL isn't either a parent of UHH, nor a parent of EHCI/OHCI
> > > blocks. We can, from a code perspective, make USBTLL into a parent of
> > > UHH to make things simpler, but this will mean that calling
> > > pm_runtime_get() will also unconditionaly turn on TLL clock, unless we
> > > add some nasty hacks to allow TLL know if *HCI port is in TLL mode.
> > >
> > > That's why I decided for making TLL and UHH siblings, because that's a
> > > closer relationship than parent-child.
> > >
> > > Can you see the problem now ?
> >
> > Okay, now I understand better. The word "sibling" implies that the two
> > objects have the same parent, so a different word would describe this
> > relationship better. Something like "friend" or "associate".
> >
> > Or maybe, following Paul's suggestion, the driver core doesn't have to
> > be changed at all.
> I see... I just thought that if there are other similar cases, it might
> make sense to have a more generic way to make those two devices talk to
> each other. But if you all agree that an EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() is enough,
> then it's ok ;-)

At the moment, I can't see any way to set up a more generic mechanism
that wouldn't be more complicated and have higher overhead than a

Can this be handled by adding another resource to a platform_device?
That at least would make use of an already-existing mechanism.

Alan Stern

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-11 16:07    [W:0.068 / U:14.676 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site