[RESEND 1/2] usb: ehci-exynos: Make provision for vdd regulators

[Anand Moon]

On 8 June 2015 at 10:58, Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek at samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 08, 2015 10:44 AM, "Krzysztof Kozlowski"
> <k.kozlowski at samsung.com> wrote:
>
> my apologies for being late in replying to this thread.
>
>> 2015-06-08 13:21 GMT+09:00 Anand Moon <linux.amoon at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi Krzysztof ,
>>>
>>> On 8 June 2015 at 07:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski at samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07.06.2015 22:20, Anand Moon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Facilitate getting required 3.3V and 1.0V VDD supply for
>>>>> EHCI controller on Exynos.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the patches for regulators' nodes merged in 3.15:
>>>>> c8c253f ARM: dts: Add regulator entries to smdk5420
>>>>> 275dcd2 ARM: dts: add max77686 pmic node for smdk5250,
>>>>> the exynos systems turn on only minimal number of regulators.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until now, the VDD regulator supplies were either turned on
>>>>> by the bootloader, or the regulators were enabled by default
>>>>> in the kernel, so that the controller drivers did not need to
>>>>> care about turning on these regulators on their own.
>>>>> This was rather bad about these controller drivers.
>>>>> So ensuring now that the controller driver requests the necessary
>>>>> VDD regulators (if available, unless there are direct VDD rails),
>>>>> and enable them so as to make them working.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek at samsung.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon at gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: Jingoo Han <jg1.han at samsung.com>
>>>>> Cc: Alan Stern <stern at rowland.harvard.edu>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Initial version of this patch was part of following series, though
>>>>> they are not dependent on each other, resubmitting after rebasing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-June/266418.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you just took Vivek's patch along with all the credits... That is not
>>>> how we usually do this.
>>>>
>>>> I would expect that rebasing a patch won't change the author unless this
>>>> is fine with Vivek.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry If I have done some mistake on my part.
>>> I just looked at below mail chain. Before I send it.
>>>
>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-samsung-soc/msg44136.html
>>
>>
>> I don't get it. The patch you are referring to has a proper "From"
>> field. So please use it as an example.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't want to take any credit out of it. I just re-base on the new
>>> kernel.
>
> Perhaps, you would have maintained the authorship !
>
>>> I could not test this patch as it meant for exynos5440 boards.
>>
>>
>> Are you sure? I think the driver is used on almost all of Exynos SoCs
>> (Exynos4, Exynos5250, Exynos542x).
>
>
> That's correct, as pointed by Krzysztof Kozlowski, the driver is same for
> Exynos4 and Exynos5 series
> of SoCs.
>
>> Untested code should not go to the kernel. Additionally you should
>> mark it as not-tested. Marking such patch as non-tested could help you
>> finding some independent tests (tests performed by someone else).
>>
>> To summarize my point of view:
>> 1. Unless Vivek's says otherwise, please give him the credits with
>> proper "from" field.
>> 2. Issues mentioned in previous mail should be addressed (missing
>> IS_ERR(), how disabling the regulator during suspend affects waking
>> up).
>> 3. The patchset must be tested, even after rebasing.
>
>
> Unfortunately, I got busy  with a different project and lost track of the
> patches posted upstream.
> If it's not too late I can post a rebased version of the patch with previous
> review comments addressed.
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>
>

Hi All,

I have learned my lesson not to interfere in others work.
It will never happen from my side again.

Please accept my apology.

-Anand Moon