On Friday, January 03, 2014 at 06:03:47 AM, Inderpal Singh wrote: > Hi Marek, > > Thanks for the review. > > On 3 January 2014 06:24, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > On Thursday, January 02, 2014 at 10:41:58 AM, Inderpal Singh wrote: > > > From: Inderpal Singh <chander.kash...@linaro.org> > > > > > > The controller has 3 ports. The port0 is for USB 2.0 Phy, port1 and > > > port2 are for HSIC phys. The usb 2.0 phy is already being setup. This > > > patch sets up the hsic phys. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh <inderpal.si...@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-exynos/ehci.h | 14 +++++++++++ > > > drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c | 39 > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+) > > > > Is it OK to set all the ports up unconditionally ? I am not sure about > > exynos of > > course, but is it possible there are some machines which don't use the > > HSIC ports and this would have some kind of adverse effects on those? > > I feel it should not cause any side effect as it wont interfere with the > normal USB 2.0 phy port. Also, its being done along the same lines as > kernel driver at drivers/usb/phy/phy-samsung-usb2.c, which also sets up all > ports unconditionally.
OK, I won't fight this. I would be much more inclined to being able to conditionally select which ports get configured. Especially, since you do know that information from DT, dont you? Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
