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