[PATCHv2 0/7] Add support for USB OTG on STM32F7

[Felipe Balbi]

Hi,

Amelie DELAUNAY <amelie.delaunay at st.com> writes:
> Hi Felipe, Alex,
>
> On 10/11/2017 04:38 PM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/11/2017 03:26 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue at st.com> writes:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2017 01:50 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue at st.com> writes:
>>>>>> Hi Felip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/11/2017 12:04 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay at st.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> The STM32F7 MCU family embeds two DWC2 USB OTG cores. One core is 
>>>>>>>> USB
>>>>>>>> OTG FS and the other is USB OTG HS. The USB FS core only works 
>>>>>>>> with its
>>>>>>>> internal phy whilst the USB HS core can work in HS with external 
>>>>>>>> ULPI phy
>>>>>>>> or in FS/LS with the on-chip FS phy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay (7):
>>>>>>>>      dt-bindings: usb: Document the STM32F7 DWC2 USB OTG HS core 
>>>>>>>> binding
>>>>>>>>      usb: dwc2: add support for STM32F7 USB OTG HS
>>>>>>>>      ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have applied these three patches. Should I take the rest? They 
>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>> like they could go upstream through the ARM maintainers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will take other DT patches in my PR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Concerning "ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU" 
>>>>>> patch
>>>>>> I prefer also to take it. This patch adds some pinctrl groups but 
>>>>>> stm32
>>>>>> pinctrl bindings will change in my next PR (we will use a macro to
>>>>>> define pins instead of using defined values). So if you push the DT
>>>>>> patch through your pull request there will be a merge issue.
>>>>>> It is possible that I take also this one ?
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case, it's best if you take them all :-) Here's my Ack:
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi at linux.intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll drop them from my tree now
>>>>
>>>> Ok perfect, I will take DT patches (3 to 7) and I let you take patch 1&2
>>>> in your tree.
>>>
>>> Well, I have dropped them from my tree. Please two 1-7 through yours.
>> 
>> Hum, ok for this patchset but IMO it is better (next time) that you take 
>> driver pacthes in your tree and I take only DT patches in mine.
>> No ?
>> 
>> Regards
>> Alex
>> 
>>>
>
> I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be 
> applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be 
> applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something?

patch 1 is documentation, right? Without the documentation patch,
checkpatch will cringe :-) So either way works.

If you insist, I can take 1-2 through my tree. No worries.

let me know

-- 
balbi