From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: daniel@caiaq.de (Daniel Mack)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 07:42:25 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] ulpi: add i.MX25 & 35 internal PHY ID
In-Reply-To: <4CA9EF97.5040908@compulab.co.il>
References: <1286195012-18999-1-git-send-email-eric@eukrea.com>
	<4CA9EAA0.2060608@ru.mvista.com> <4CA9EF97.5040908@compulab.co.il>
Message-ID: <20101005054225.GK7159@buzzloop.caiaq.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 05:15:35PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote:
>  On 10/04/10 16:54, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > Eric B?nard wrote:
> >
> >> without this patch, the initialization of the OTG port in host mode
> >> fails with :
> >> ehci_hcd: USB 2.0 'Enhanced' Host Controller (EHCI) Driver
> >> mxc-ehci mxc-ehci.0: initializing i.MX USB Controller
> >> ULPI transceiver vendor/product ID 0x0000/0x0000
> >> ULPI ID does not match any known transceiver.
> >> mxc-ehci mxc-ehci.0: unable to init transceiver, probably missing
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric B?nard <eric@eukrea.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/usb/otg/ulpi.c |    5 ++++-
> >>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> >    You should have CC'ed linux-usb at vger.kernel.org.
> >
> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/otg/ulpi.c b/drivers/usb/otg/ulpi.c
> >> index ccc8195..e802e44 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/usb/otg/ulpi.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/otg/ulpi.c
> >> @@ -34,7 +34,10 @@
> >>  /* ULPI hardcoded IDs, used for probing */
> >>  static unsigned int ulpi_ids[] = {
> >>      ULPI_ID(0x04cc, 0x1504),    /* NXP ISP1504 */
> >> -    ULPI_ID(0x0424, 0x0006),        /* SMSC USB3319 */
> >> +    ULPI_ID(0x0424, 0x0006),    /* SMSC USB3319 */
> >> +#if (defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX25) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX35))
> >> +    ULPI_ID(0x0000, 0x0000),    /* i.MX25 & i.MX35 internal PHY */
> >> +#endif
> >
> >    I don't know why this table is at all used in the first place. IMO, checking for the vendor/device ID serves no purpose...
> 
> Well, it was there in first place, when Daniel merged this.
> May be it was taken from Sascha.
> I think its purpose to check if there is a ulpi transceiver out there,
> although, ulpi defines a special scratch register for testing purposes.

Correct, its primary purpose was to see whether the ULPI low-level
communication works at all, and to bail out when it doesn't.

I wasn't aware of that scratch register. If we don't need that table any
more, feel free to drop it.

Thanks,
Daniel