On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 05:23:05 PM, maitysancha...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello, > > On 15-10-24 12:09:43, Fabio Estevam wrote: > > Hi Marek, > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > >> Any inputs on the below? > > > > > > I don't have a Vybrid device, CCing Fabio. > > > > I don't have access to a Vybrid board either. > > > > Sanchayan, > > > > Does drivers/usb/host/ehci-mx6.c behave the same way? > > No. > > I included the particular piece of code below > > > if (init == USB_INIT_DEVICE && index == 1) > return -ENODEV; > if (init == USB_INIT_HOST && index == 0) > return -ENODEV; > > in the ehci-vf driver because our requirement was to have one port > as client and other as host. Since on USB start both ports get configured > as host as it iterates depending on USB EHCI controller count, the above > was meant to stop the port required as client to be configured as host and > vice versa while using client functionality such as DFU. > > I made the mistake of not thinking that this is not a generic use case, > someone might want it the other way around or such. > > So coming to the main question, what would be the correct way to fix this? > I tested that even if the above four lines are removed and USB start > configures both ports as host, calling dfu later will still result in > correct functioning. So is this ok and the four lines should be nuked or a > more appropriate way would be to add something like > board_ehci_hcd_init_with_type(int index, enum usb_init _type init) which > would be a weak function and have the board specific code call this to do > the above which is currently done in ehci-vf. > > I wasn't sure about the right approach to take so I asked.
Brief glare over the driver tells me that those four lines are complete nonsense and should be removed. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
