Hello,
On 15-04-13 01:28:07, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 07:33:41 AM, maitysancha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 15-04-11 18:46:15, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 08, 2015 at 03:20:04 PM, Sanchayan Maity wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > This is the second version of the patchset which adds support for the
> > > > Toradex Colibri Vybrid VF50 and VF61 modules. Boot up has been tested
> > > > using the serial loader over UART.
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Stefano, maybe you can pick 1,2,3,4,6 right away for next? This way, we
> > > can solve 5/6 separately, since it might need some further dicussion. I
> > > don't want that patch to block the rest of the series though.
> >
> > The sixth patch has some minor dependencies on the fifth patch like some
> > #defines and configuration we enable for Colibri. In case the fifth
> > patch will require some more discussion and time, then I guess I will
> > need to rework the sixth patch and then everything related to USB can
> > go in a later patch. The rework will be minor. So the v3 will be without
> > USB support
>
> Well, if you want to rework the 6th patch, that'd be very nice of you :)
Yes sure. Will put the USB support in the end or not, the first patches
can go in atleast since there seem to be no complaints on them so far.
>
> > and USB will go in later once this gets applied. Perhaps we
> > will send the USB along with some more other featureset addition like
> > gpio support for Vybrid which my colleague did recently along with some
> > driver model/dt stuff.
>
> My impression is that the USB is just a matter of figuring out where the
> PHY registers go -- whether in arch/arm/include/imx-common or into
> include/usb/ . I'd be more inclined for the later, since the PHY regs
> looks like chipidea IP specific thing, but I might be wrong.
I would say it looks like chipidea specific but I have not looked at IPs
other than Freescale controllers to be sure.
>
> > By the way, where the fifth patch is concerned, is it related to the
> > discussion Fabio pointed out in the discussion on first version of the
> > patch? uboot trying to get rid of the 'no register access via offset'
> > rule? Anything required I can rework accordingly.
>
> I was concerned about the placement of the PHY reg definition. I didn't
> hear from Fabio on the result of this decision and I don't really mind
> that either way.
Ok. So I assume the driver can resort to the way it was in the first
version while being changed with regards to three points 1. Use of
clrsetbits_ related functions 2. Register phy definitions going in
either of imx-common/ or include/usb/ with chipidea name. 3. No need to
use offset accesses with the struct{} in light of the discussion Fabio
pointed out.
>
> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut
Thanks & Regards,
Sanchayan.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
