From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Quadros Subject: Re: regression(ti platforms): next-20140210 (ehci?) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:16:53 +0200 Message-ID: <52F91795.9080500@ti.com> References: <52F8F77B.70605@ti.com> <52F9117C.8000405@ti.com> <52F91451.8050802@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:44849 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753406AbaBJSQ5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:16:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <52F91451.8050802@ti.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Nishanth Menon , linux-omap , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, "Balbi, Felipe" Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "tony@atomide.com" On 02/10/2014 08:02 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 02/10/2014 11:50 AM, Roger Quadros wrote: >> +devicetree >> > [...] >> In the DT node we have compatible ids for both. e.g. for omap4.dtsi >> >> usbhsehci: ehci@4a064c00 { >> compatible = "ti,ehci-omap", "usb-ehci"; >> reg = <0x4a064c00 0x400>; >> interrupt-parent = <&gic>; >> interrupts = ; >> }; >> >> Shouldn't ehci-omap driver be getting a higher priority than usb-ehci? >> >> A quick fix would be to eliminate "usb-ehci" from the DT node of all failing platforms. > > If the driver is not compatible with "usb-ehci", not sure why do we > even state that in dts node? > > I'm not sure either. Let's get rid of it. Patch to fix the reported issue. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/61204 cheers, -roger