On 07/30/2013 07:19 AM, George Cherian wrote: >> So from what I see now, it is most likely the easiest thing to just add >> that wakeup to the phy driver I posted. Do you agree? > > The whole idea of writing a seperate phy driver was to use the generic > phy framework > and most of the amxxxx devices have the same phy (eg am335x, am437x). > Now since the register is shared in am335x for phy_wkup (Not in the case > of am437x) > how are you planning to map it. I feel if omap_control_usb can delegate > the writes > to phy_wkup, phy_on and phy_off, it makes the life simpler.
that omap-control driver looks a little strange. It has a compatible field saying ti,omap-control-usb and then it requires additionally a ti,type property which should have been avoided. But back to the initial problem. I don't really like the idea of touching in the control-module registers but others do it as well. So the idea of a control driver doesn't sound that bad. - an am335x-reset device - a phy driver with a reference to that reset device. - non-standard phy calls for power & wak eup on/off. Let me think about it. > > Thoughts??? I think I buy it but give me a bit… > Sebastian -- 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
