Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Marek Vasut]

> Hi lists:
> 
> 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. 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?
> If mxs maintainers think it will cause confusion, I would like to change
> names to ehci-imx.c and fsl_imx_udc.c for all recent Freescale SoC's (from
> mx23 to mx6), is it suitable? 3. Create transceiver driver for mx28, and
> it will also be used for mx6.
> 
> Best regards,
> Peter Chen
> 
> MAD Linux BSP Team
> Freescale Semiconductor Ltd.

Hi,

any updates on the MXS USB Host front?

M