On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Tony Prisk wrote:
> My biggest concern about the binding is all the platform_data that is
> used in the ehci-platform driver that I don't recognise.
> arch-vt8500 doesn't require any of them.
>
> Looking through, most seem like they would be obvious candidates for DT
> propert
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 21:47 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Tony Prisk wrote:
>
> > > How about instead of changing ehci-vt8500.c, remove it completely and
> > > use ehci-platform instead? The changes required should be minimal,
> > > especially after ehci_update_device() get mov
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > How about instead of changing ehci-vt8500.c, remove it completely and
> > use ehci-platform instead? The changes required should be minimal,
> > especially after ehci_update_device() get moved into ehci-lpm.c and
> > added to the hc_driver structure fo
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 11:44 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Tony Prisk wrote:
>
> > When probed from devicetree, dma_mask is not set but is required by
> > the usb subsystem. These patches add a default dma_mask when not
> > specified.
> >
> > Tony Prisk (2):
> > usb: Missing dma
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Tony Prisk wrote:
> When probed from devicetree, dma_mask is not set but is required by
> the usb subsystem. These patches add a default dma_mask when not
> specified.
>
> Tony Prisk (2):
> usb: Missing dma_mask in uhci-platform.c when probed from device-tree
> usb: Missin
When probed from devicetree, dma_mask is not set but is required by
the usb subsystem. These patches add a default dma_mask when not
specified.
Tony Prisk (2):
usb: Missing dma_mask in uhci-platform.c when probed from device-tree
usb: Missing dma_mask in ehci-vt8500.c when probed from device-t
