lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v2 1/5] phy: Add new Exynos USB PHY driver
Hi,

> From: Tomasz Figa [mailto:tomasz.figa@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 9:00 PM
>
> Hi Kamil,
>
> On Monday 28 of October 2013 14:52:19 Kamil Debski wrote:
> > Hi Kishon,
> >
> > Thank you for your review! I will answer your comments below.
> [snip]
> > > > +
> > > > + switch (drv->cfg->cpu) {
> > > > + case TYPE_EXYNOS4210:
> > >
> > > > + case TYPE_EXYNOS4212:
> > > Lets not add such cpu checks inside driver.
> >
> > Some SoC have a special register, which switches the OTG lines
> between
> > device and host modes. I understand that it might not be the
> prettiest
> > code. I see this as a good compromise between having a single huge
> > driver for all Exynos SoCs and having a multiple drivers for each SoC
> > version. PHY IPs in these chips very are similar but have to be
> > handled differently. Any other ideas to solve this issue?
>
> Maybe adding a flag in drv->cfg called, for example, .has_mode_switch
> could solve this problem without having to check the SoC type
> explicitly?

Sounds like a good idea.

> [snip]
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PHY_EXYNOS4210_USB
> > >
> > > Do we really need this?
> >
> > No we don't. The driver can always support all Exynos SoC versions.
> > These config options were added for flexibility.
> >
> > > > +extern const struct uphy_config exynos4210_uphy_config; #endif
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PHY_EXYNOS4212_USB
> > >
> > > Same here.
> > >
> > > > +extern const struct uphy_config exynos4212_uphy_config; #endif
> > > > +
> > > > +static const struct of_device_id exynos_uphy_of_match[] = {
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PHY_EXYNOS4210_USB
> > >
> > > #if not needed here.
> >
> > If the #ifdef CONFIG_PHY_EXYNOS4210_USB is removed then yes.
> Otherwise
> > it is necessary - exynos4210_uphy_config may be undefined.
>
> I believe this and other ifdefs below are needed, otherwise, with
> support for one of the SoCs disabled, the driver could still bind to
> its compatible value.
>

Best wishes,
--
Kamil Debski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-29 12:01    [W:0.084 / U:2.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site