On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:06:33AM +0800, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
>
> > >
> > > <&usbmisc 0> would then mean port 0 of the usbmisc device.
> > I didn't add the restriction that a usbmisc driver must have a usbmisc
> > device. I'm not sure whether all SoC and future SoC can be look as
> > a devic
> >
> > <&usbmisc 0> would then mean port 0 of the usbmisc device.
> I didn't add the restriction that a usbmisc driver must have a usbmisc
> device. I'm not sure whether all SoC and future SoC can be look as
> a device.
>
> Peter, do you have any idea?
>
I have not followed this usbmisc design
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:32:44AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 06:35:14PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > i.MX usb controllers shares non-core registers, which may include
> > SoC specific controls. We take it as a usbmisc device and usbmisc
> > driver set operations needed
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 06:35:14PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> i.MX usb controllers shares non-core registers, which may include
> SoC specific controls. We take it as a usbmisc device and usbmisc
> driver set operations needed by ci13xxx_imx driver.
>
> For example, Sabrelite board has bad over-
