> > > I am a little confused by using phy->state to stand for usb_state that > I think > > there is no relationship between usb_state with USB PHY. > > well, there's no relationship between usb_state and OTG. The state isn't > OTG-specific, it's USB specific. This is a difficult detail to find the > proper owner, but I don't think we should tie the state to OTG, because > systems without OTG wouldn't be able to track their states too. > I mean USB PHY. I mean these USB specific states is no relationship with USB PHY.
In my mind, the system without OTG but using struct usb_phy can still track their states. One thing I am always puzzled of current code is the OTG should be no relationship with USB PHY. The system without OTG but has USB device or host only function should still own USB PHY. > -- > balbi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
