Hi Marek,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 04:10:20 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote: >> Hi Marek, >> >> It's been very long since we had discussion for introducing the wrapper >> layer to enable using multiple usb controller types. >> Its been unfortunate that i had been busy with other tasks, and couldn't >> look into this. >> Now that i got sometime, i have prepared a simple RFC patch which right now >> supports APIs translation for submit_control_msg(), submit_bulk_msg(), >> submit_int_msg(), and usb_lowlevel_init() as well as usb_lowlevel_stop(). >> This was the simplest approach that could differentiate between controller >> types. >> >> I had thought of another approach too, wherein there's a 'list' passed by >> the usb core layer, which would be filled with 'host_controller_drv' >> structure, that would contain information about the driver. And then each >> host controller driver will register certain callbacks that can be called >> from the upper layers. If you say i will send an RFC for this approach. > > I think this approach in this patchset will not play well with the driver > model. > Instead, I'd love to see a mean to instantiate each *HCI controller and have a > USB core which would track those instances. The USB core would then be able to > call whatever generic ops on those instances as needed. Does that make sense > please ? True, i understand your point here. I think the second approach i was talking of, goes in this direction. I think i could not put it well in words there. I will prepare an RFC patch for that, and post it as soon as its ready, so that you can have a look. -- Best Regards Vivek Gautam Samsung R&D Institute, Bangalore India _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
