Hi Eugen, On lun., mars 31, 2025 at 12:26, Eugen Hristev <eugen.hris...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 3/31/25 12:05, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote: >> Hi Eugen, Zixun, >> >> On lun., mars 24, 2025 at 11:23, Eugen Hristev <eugen.hris...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On 3/22/25 22:56, Zixun LI wrote: >>>> Add compatible "microchip,sam9x60-udc" and device tree binding. >>>> Compared to SAM9X5 the only difference is the DPRAM memory from the >>>> USB High Speed Device Port (UDPHS) hardware block was increased, >>>> so we can reuse the same endpoint data. >>>> >>>> Tested on SAM9X60-Curiosity board with nfs and ums commands. >>> >>> Why no patch to enable it on the board as well then ? >> >> Looking at configs/at91sam9x5ek_mmc_defconfig, I don't see >> CMD_USB_MASS_STORAGE=y in there as well. >> >> Could you elaborate on why you'd want this to be enabled as part of the >> driver series? >> >> On one hand, users has more built-in commands available and it eases the >> testing. On the other hand, some users might not be interested in having >> this by default. Enabling it via menuconfig is quite easy. > > What I meant is have the node in the board DT (gadget@500000). > That cannot be enabled in the menuconfig. > The Gadget or the Host should be described in the DT as it's a > description of the board, if the board supports both Gadget and Host , > both should be in the DT. > > If there is a hardware limitation, or something that allows only one of > these to work at the same time, this should be detailed, and have both > nodes anyway, with one of them Disabled, possibly two different DTs with > either of the nodes enabled/disabled. I see. Sorry I misunderstood your point initially. I agree with you: we should enable usb0 in arch/arm/dts/at91-sam9x60_curiosity.dts as part of this series. Thanks for the clarification! > >> >>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Zixun LI <ad...@hifiphile.com> >>>> --- [...]
