Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Chen Peter-B29397]

> >
> > 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?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h