Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson
B29397 at freescale.com
Mon Nov 28 00:24:00 EST 2011
> > Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August
> > (See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it
> hasn't been accepted.
> Why wasn't it accepted? Have the issues raised from that last posting
> of the driver now been addressed? If not, why not? If so, great.
Sascha suggested that use another platform device driver for transceiver,
and follow heikki's suggested otg structure. Since heikki's otg structure is
still not accepted, I will write a device driver for this freescale
transceiver at coming submission.
> > I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before that, I would like
> get some suggestion
> > from you. I think your suggestion will also be benefit for coming mx53,
> mx50 and mx6q's submission.
> > All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are mx23,
> mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35,
> > mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6.
> > But, the transceiver is different between them
> > mx23, mx28, mx6 (Transceiver A)
> > mx25 mx31, mx35,mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53 (Transceiver B)
> > Current upstream platform information:
> > mx23 mx28 ==> mxs platfrom
> > others (including mx6) ==> mxc platform
> > Current upstream USB information:
> > mx25, mx3x, mx51: ehci-mxc.c (host), fsl_mxc_udc.c(device, main
> functions are at fsl_udc_core.c)
> > My plan of submitting mx28 (mx53,mx50, mx6 later if possible):
> > 1. Replace cpu_is_mxxx() with struct platform_device_id for ehci-mxc.c
> and fsl_mxc_udc.c
> > 2. Using ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c for mx28 upstreaming.
> > For Step 2, I have concern that whether mxs platform users will be
> confused of their
> > usb driver named xxx_mxc, not xxx_mxs?
> Do they even care?
> greg k-h
More information about the linux-arm-kernel