2013/4/30 Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>:
> Dear Kuo-Jung Su,
>
>> 2013/4/26 Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>:
>> > Dear Kuo-Jung Su,
>> >
>> >> From: Kuo-Jung Su <dant...@faraday-tech.com>
>> >>
>> >> This patch add supports to both Faraday FUSBH200 and FOTG210,
>> >> these controllers slightly differ from standard EHCI specification.
>> >
>> > How do they differ?
>>
>> 1. The reserved registers (0x1C - 0x3F) and CONFIGFLAG (0x40) register
>> are not only un-implemented, but also removed from its register address
>> space, which means we have to update the 'struct ehci_hcor' of ehci.h
>>
>> 2. FUSBH200/FOTG210 doesn't properly follow the ECHI for ISOC
>> implementations. (It should be a hardware bug, but no one wants to fix
>> it.)
>>
>> I'll add these description to commit log at next patch.
>
> Mhmmm ... maybe you can add some hooks into ehci-hcd driver instead of
> poluting
> it with ifdefs ? Weak-aliased functions would probably work best to contain
> your
> weird stuff in your driver only.
>
Did you mean 'Not poluting ehci.h with ifdefs' ?
It looks to me that the best way is to leave ehci.h untouched, and
update the ehci_submit_root() as following:
----------------------------
ehci_submit_root()
{
......
#ifdef CONFIG_USB_EHCI_FARADAY
status_reg = (uint32_t *)((uint8_t *)&ctrl->hcor + 0x30);
#else
status_reg = (uint32_t *)&ctrl->hcor->or_portsc[
le16_to_cpu(req->index) - 1];
#endif
......
}
------------------------------
Would it be acceptable in this way?
If it's not, I'll make this patch as a separate patch with some hooks
into ehci-hcd.
> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut
--
Best wishes,
Kuo-Jung Su
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
