Re: [PATCH] usb-host: Remove fusbh200 driver

[Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1822 bytes --]

Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 01:18:27PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
>>> fusbh200 and fotg210 are very similar. The initial idea was to consolidate
>>> both drivers but I'm afraid fusbh200 is not being used.
>>>
>>> This patch remove the fusbh200 source code, update Kconfig and two
>>> Makefiles.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@gmail.com>
>>
>> after all this work on these previous patches, you just remove fusbh200 ?
>>
>> that's a bit odd. Are you sure there are no users for this driver ? It has been
>> in tree since 2013.
> I don't know about users, but I could not find devices using fusbh200.
> The closest I got was:
>
> http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Digital-Video-Langzeit-Recorder-H264-DVR-3G-4-Kanal-/370525106495
>
> But it only says: Main Processor: Faraday. I don't know which usb host
> controller it uses.
>
> The idea of deleting fusbh200 came from contacting the driver authors.
> I was asking where to find hw for testing, and I was told that the
> fusbh200 driver can be deleted. Also at least Fedora and Ubuntu build
> modules for these host controllers by default. If fusbh200 and fotg210
> are only available integrated into SOCs, maybe building the modules by
> default for x86 is not a good idea. But if there are users I'll be
> happy to continue the integration work, even better if I find hardware
> for testing.

fair enough, if can be deleted it's fine...

> John Feng-Hsin Chiang, can you confirm that from your side the
> fusbh200 driver can be deleted?

... but let's get this confirmation.

> For the patches I sent, 10 of 14 are for fotg210 which I'll fix and resend.

cool, thanks

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 818 bytes --]