Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Chen Peter-B29397]

Hi lists:

Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August 
(See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it hasn't been accepted.
I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before that, I would like get some suggestion 
from you. I think your suggestion will also be benefit for coming mx53, mx50 and mx6q's submission.

All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are mx23, mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35,
mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6.
But, the transceiver is different between them
mx23, mx28, mx6 (Transceiver A)
mx25 mx31, mx35,mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53 (Transceiver B)

Current upstream platform information:
mx23 mx28 ==> mxs platfrom
others (including mx6) ==> mxc platform

Current upstream USB information:
mx25, mx3x, mx51: ehci-mxc.c (host), fsl_mxc_udc.c(device, main functions are at fsl_udc_core.c)

My plan of submitting mx28 (mx53,mx50, mx6 later if possible):
1. Replace cpu_is_mxxx() with struct platform_device_id for ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c
2. Using ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c for mx28 upstreaming.
For Step 2, I have concern that whether mxs platform users will be confused of their
usb driver named xxx_mxc, not xxx_mxs?
If mxs maintainers think it will cause confusion, I would like to change names to ehci-imx.c
and fsl_imx_udc.c for all recent Freescale SoC's (from mx23 to mx6), is it suitable?
3. Create transceiver driver for mx28, and it will also be used for mx6.  

Best regards,
Peter Chen

MAD Linux BSP Team
Freescale Semiconductor Ltd.

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 03:06:48AM +0000, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
> Hi lists:
> 
> Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August 
> (See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it hasn't been accepted.

Why wasn't it accepted?  Have the issues raised from that last posting
of the driver now been addressed?  If not, why not?  If so, great.

> I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before that, I would like get some suggestion 
> from you. I think your suggestion will also be benefit for coming mx53, mx50 and mx6q's submission.
> 
> All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are mx23, mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35,
> mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6.
> But, the transceiver is different between them
> mx23, mx28, mx6 (Transceiver A)
> mx25 mx31, mx35,mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53 (Transceiver B)
> 
> Current upstream platform information:
> mx23 mx28 ==> mxs platfrom
> others (including mx6) ==> mxc platform
> 
> Current upstream USB information:
> mx25, mx3x, mx51: ehci-mxc.c (host), fsl_mxc_udc.c(device, main functions are at fsl_udc_core.c)
> 
> My plan of submitting mx28 (mx53,mx50, mx6 later if possible):
> 1. Replace cpu_is_mxxx() with struct platform_device_id for ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c
> 2. Using ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c for mx28 upstreaming.
> For Step 2, I have concern that whether mxs platform users will be confused of their
> usb driver named xxx_mxc, not xxx_mxs?

Do they even care?

thanks,

greg k-h

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Chen Peter-B29397]

 
> >
> > Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August
> > (See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it
> hasn't been accepted.
> 
> Why wasn't it accepted?  Have the issues raised from that last posting
> of the driver now been addressed?  If not, why not?  If so, great.
> 
Sascha suggested that use another platform device driver for transceiver,
and follow heikki's suggested otg structure. Since heikki's otg structure is
still not accepted, I will write a device driver for this freescale 
transceiver at coming submission. 

> > I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before that, I would like
> get some suggestion
> > from you. I think your suggestion will also be benefit for coming mx53,
> mx50 and mx6q's submission.
> >
> > All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are mx23,
> mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35,
> > mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6.
> > But, the transceiver is different between them
> > mx23, mx28, mx6 (Transceiver A)
> > mx25 mx31, mx35,mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53 (Transceiver B)
> >
> > Current upstream platform information:
> > mx23 mx28 ==> mxs platfrom
> > others (including mx6) ==> mxc platform
> >
> > Current upstream USB information:
> > mx25, mx3x, mx51: ehci-mxc.c (host), fsl_mxc_udc.c(device, main
> functions are at fsl_udc_core.c)
> >
> > My plan of submitting mx28 (mx53,mx50, mx6 later if possible):
> > 1. Replace cpu_is_mxxx() with struct platform_device_id for ehci-mxc.c
> and fsl_mxc_udc.c
> > 2. Using ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c for mx28 upstreaming.
> > For Step 2, I have concern that whether mxs platform users will be
> confused of their
> > usb driver named xxx_mxc, not xxx_mxs?
> 
> Do they even care?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 05:24:00AM +0000, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
>  
> > >
> > > Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August
> > > (See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it
> > hasn't been accepted.
> > 
> > Why wasn't it accepted?  Have the issues raised from that last posting
> > of the driver now been addressed?  If not, why not?  If so, great.
> > 
> Sascha suggested that use another platform device driver for transceiver,
> and follow heikki's suggested otg structure. Since heikki's otg structure is
> still not accepted, I will write a device driver for this freescale 
> transceiver at coming submission. 

Why not work to get the OTG stuff accepted, that should make your life
easier, right?

thanks,

greg k-h

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Shawn Guo]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 01:57:33PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 03:06:48AM +0000, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
> > Hi lists:
> > 
> > Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August 
> > (See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it hasn't been accepted.
> 
> Why wasn't it accepted?  Have the issues raised from that last posting
> of the driver now been addressed?  If not, why not?  If so, great.
> 
> > I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before that, I would like get some suggestion 
> > from you. I think your suggestion will also be benefit for coming mx53, mx50 and mx6q's submission.
> > 
> > All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are mx23, mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35,
> > mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6.
> > But, the transceiver is different between them
> > mx23, mx28, mx6 (Transceiver A)
> > mx25 mx31, mx35,mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53 (Transceiver B)
> > 
> > Current upstream platform information:
> > mx23 mx28 ==> mxs platfrom
> > others (including mx6) ==> mxc platform
> > 
> > Current upstream USB information:
> > mx25, mx3x, mx51: ehci-mxc.c (host), fsl_mxc_udc.c(device, main functions are at fsl_udc_core.c)
> > 
> > My plan of submitting mx28 (mx53,mx50, mx6 later if possible):
> > 1. Replace cpu_is_mxxx() with struct platform_device_id for ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c
> > 2. Using ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c for mx28 upstreaming.
> > For Step 2, I have concern that whether mxs platform users will be confused of their
> > usb driver named xxx_mxc, not xxx_mxs?
> 
> Do they even care?
> 
If the renaming will not cause any trouble, I prefer to name them with
'imx' which could reasonably cover both mxs and mxc.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Chen Peter-B29397]

> 
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 01:57:33PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 03:06:48AM +0000, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
> > > Hi lists:
> > >
> > > Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August
> > > (See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it
> hasn't been accepted.
> >
> > Why wasn't it accepted?  Have the issues raised from that last posting
> > of the driver now been addressed?  If not, why not?  If so, great.
> >
> > > I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before that, I would like
> get some suggestion
> > > from you. I think your suggestion will also be benefit for coming
> mx53, mx50 and mx6q's submission.
> > >
> > > All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are
> mx23, mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35,
> > > mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6.
> > > But, the transceiver is different between them
> > > mx23, mx28, mx6 (Transceiver A)
> > > mx25 mx31, mx35,mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53 (Transceiver B)
> > >
> > > Current upstream platform information:
> > > mx23 mx28 ==> mxs platfrom
> > > others (including mx6) ==> mxc platform
> > >
> > > Current upstream USB information:
> > > mx25, mx3x, mx51: ehci-mxc.c (host), fsl_mxc_udc.c(device, main
> functions are at fsl_udc_core.c)
> > >
> > > My plan of submitting mx28 (mx53,mx50, mx6 later if possible):
> > > 1. Replace cpu_is_mxxx() with struct platform_device_id for ehci-
> mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c
> > > 2. Using ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c for mx28 upstreaming.
> > > For Step 2, I have concern that whether mxs platform users will be
> confused of their
> > > usb driver named xxx_mxc, not xxx_mxs?
> >
> > Do they even care?
> >
> If the renaming will not cause any trouble, I prefer to name them with
> 'imx' which could reasonably cover both mxs and mxc.
> 
Shawn, since current i.mx usb framework and otg/phy structure may not suitable
for mx28's mainline, I will postpone mx28 usb's mainline, and do i.mx usb framework
refine first.
> --
> Regards,
> Shawn

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Robert Schwebel]

Peter,

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 03:06:48AM +0000, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
> Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August (See:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it hasn't
> been accepted. I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before
> that, I would like get some suggestion from you. I think your
> suggestion will also be benefit for coming mx53, mx50 and mx6q's
> submission.
>
> All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are
> mx23, mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35, mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6.

We have recently worked on the USB device part of the MX28, and it
turned out that it is an Synopsys IP core and the driver for that is
ci13xxx_udc.c. Marc Kleine-Budde has sent patches to make it more
generic and fix several locking issues, so it currently works up to a
certain degree on MX28.

The whole ci13xxx issue is a huge mess: there are 4 different drivers
for this IP core in the kernel, all in different states.

So my suggestion is:

- help to mainline Heikki's patches (port your platform, help testing)
- let's improve the ci13xxx driver for i.MX.

rsc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Chen Peter-B29397]

 
> Peter,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 03:06:48AM +0000, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
> > Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August (See:
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it hasn't
> > been accepted. I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before
> > that, I would like get some suggestion from you. I think your
> > suggestion will also be benefit for coming mx53, mx50 and mx6q's
> > submission.
> >
> > All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are
> > mx23, mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35, mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6.
> 
> We have recently worked on the USB device part of the MX28, and it
> turned out that it is an Synopsys IP core and the driver for that is
> ci13xxx_udc.c. Marc Kleine-Budde has sent patches to make it more
> generic and fix several locking issues, so it currently works up to a
> certain degree on MX28.
> 
> The whole ci13xxx issue is a huge mess: there are 4 different drivers
> for this IP core in the kernel, all in different states.
> 
> So my suggestion is:
> 
> - help to mainline Heikki's patches (port your platform, help testing)
> - let's improve the ci13xxx driver for i.MX.
> 
Robert, thanks for your suggestion, I just wonder if it will cause mx28
usb upstream a little later?

> rsc
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           |
> |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/
> |
> Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0
> |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555
> |

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Robert Schwebel]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 08:10:14AM +0000, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
> > - help to mainline Heikki's patches (port your platform, help testing)
> > - let's improve the ci13xxx driver for i.MX.
>
> Robert, thanks for your suggestion, I just wonder if it will cause
> mx28 usb upstream a little later?

Well, if the quality of the code improves, it will be worth it. Note
that this is already unmaintainable: if you don't believe it, look at
the git log for the four different drivers and you'll notice that a lot
of bugs and improvements do not make their way into all of the drivers.

rsc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Chen Peter-B29397]

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-usb-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-usb-
> owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Robert Schwebel
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 4:18 PM
> To: Chen Peter-B29397
> Cc: linux-usb at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> gregkh at suse.de; stern at rowland.harvard.edu; kernel at pengutronix.de;
> shawn.guo at linaro.org; eric.y.miao at gmail.com; Li Frank-B20596; Lin Tony-
> B19295
> Subject: Re: Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson
> 
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 08:10:14AM +0000, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
> > > - help to mainline Heikki's patches (port your platform, help testing)
> > > - let's improve the ci13xxx driver for i.MX.
> >
> > Robert, thanks for your suggestion, I just wonder if it will cause
> > mx28 usb upstream a little later?
> 
> Well, if the quality of the code improves, it will be worth it. Note
> that this is already unmaintainable: if you don't believe it, look at
> the git log for the four different drivers and you'll notice that a lot
> of bugs and improvements do not make their way into all of the drivers.
> 

Submit a new driver with new platform may not an easy life. 
Anyway, I will mostly follow your suggestion if others have no better suggestion. 

> rsc
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           |
> |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/
> |
> Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0
> |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555
> |
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Marc Kleine-Budde]

On 11/28/2011 04:06 AM, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
> Hi lists:
> 
> Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August 
> (See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it hasn't been accepted.
> I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before that, I would like get some suggestion 
> from you. I think your suggestion will also be benefit for coming mx53, mx50 and mx6q's submission.
> 
> All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are mx23, mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35,
> mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6.
> But, the transceiver is different between them
> mx23, mx28, mx6 (Transceiver A)
> mx25 mx31, mx35,mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53 (Transceiver B)
> 
> Current upstream platform information:
> mx23 mx28 ==> mxs platfrom
> others (including mx6) ==> mxc platform
> 
> Current upstream USB information:
> mx25, mx3x, mx51: ehci-mxc.c (host), fsl_mxc_udc.c(device, main functions are at fsl_udc_core.c)
> 
> My plan of submitting mx28 (mx53,mx50, mx6 later if possible):
> 1. Replace cpu_is_mxxx() with struct platform_device_id for ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c

The cpu_is_mxxx() code in the clock handling code can be removed by
introducing the missing clocks as no-op clocks on the other cores.

> 2. Using ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c for mx28 upstreaming.
> For Step 2, I have concern that whether mxs platform users will be confused of their
> usb driver named xxx_mxc, not xxx_mxs?
> If mxs maintainers think it will cause confusion, I would like to change names to ehci-imx.c
> and fsl_imx_udc.c for all recent Freescale SoC's (from mx23 to mx6), is it suitable?
> 3. Create transceiver driver for mx28, and it will also be used for mx6.  

For the usb device part, I'm supporting with Robert's suggesting, first
mainline Heikki's otg patches, improve the ci13xxx driver.

cheers, Marc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20111128/4b215681/attachment.sig>

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Chen Peter-B29397]

 

> On 11/28/2011 04:06 AM, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
>> Hi lists:
>> 
>> Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August 
>> (See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it hasn't been accepted.
>> I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before that, I would like get some suggestion 
>> from you. I think your suggestion will also be benefit for coming mx53, mx50 and mx6q's submission.
>> 
>> All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are mx23, mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35,
>> mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6.
>> But, the transceiver is different between them
>> mx23, mx28, mx6 (Transceiver A)
>> mx25 mx31, mx35,mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53 (Transceiver B)
>> 
>> Current upstream platform information:
>> mx23 mx28 ==> mxs platfrom
>> others (including mx6) ==> mxc platform
>> 
>> Current upstream USB information:
>> mx25, mx3x, mx51: ehci-mxc.c (host), fsl_mxc_udc.c(device, main functions are at fsl_udc_core.c)
>> 
>> My plan of submitting mx28 (mx53,mx50, mx6 later if possible):
>> 1. Replace cpu_is_mxxx() with struct platform_device_id for ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c
> 
> The cpu_is_mxxx() code in the clock handling code can be removed by
> introducing the missing clocks as no-op clocks on the other cores.
The reason do this is most of driver doesn't accept cpu_is_xx any more.
In order to support mx28 (mx6q later) and coming device tree, I have decided to do this patch

> 
>> 2. Using ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c for mx28 upstreaming.
>> For Step 2, I have concern that whether mxs platform users will be confused of their
>> usb driver named xxx_mxc, not xxx_mxs?
>> If mxs maintainers think it will cause confusion, I would like to change names to ehci-imx.c
>> and fsl_imx_udc.c for all recent Freescale SoC's (from mx23 to mx6), is it suitable?
>> 3. Create transceiver driver for mx28, and it will also be used for mx6.  
> 
> For the usb device part, I'm supporting with Robert's suggesting, first
> mainline Heikki's otg patches, improve the ci13xxx driver.
I will discuss with Heikki, what's status for this patch, and what
can I help to do it

> 
> cheers, Marc
> -- 
> Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
> Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
> Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |
> 

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Marek Vasut]

> Hi lists:
> 
> Tony Lin has submitted Freescale mx28 USB Patch at August
> (See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg50201.html), but it hasn't
> been accepted. I would like to re-submit mx28 usb patches, before that, I
> would like get some suggestion from you. I think your suggestion will also
> be benefit for coming mx53, mx50 and mx6q's submission.
> 
> All Recently Freescale SoC's USB controller are the same, they are mx23,
> mx25, mx28, mx31, mx35, mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53, and mx6.
> But, the transceiver is different between them
> mx23, mx28, mx6 (Transceiver A)
> mx25 mx31, mx35,mx37, mx50, mx51, mx53 (Transceiver B)
> 
> Current upstream platform information:
> mx23 mx28 ==> mxs platfrom
> others (including mx6) ==> mxc platform
> 
> Current upstream USB information:
> mx25, mx3x, mx51: ehci-mxc.c (host), fsl_mxc_udc.c(device, main functions
> are at fsl_udc_core.c)
> 
> My plan of submitting mx28 (mx53,mx50, mx6 later if possible):
> 1. Replace cpu_is_mxxx() with struct platform_device_id for ehci-mxc.c and
> fsl_mxc_udc.c 2. Using ehci-mxc.c and fsl_mxc_udc.c for mx28 upstreaming.
> For Step 2, I have concern that whether mxs platform users will be confused
> of their usb driver named xxx_mxc, not xxx_mxs?
> If mxs maintainers think it will cause confusion, I would like to change
> names to ehci-imx.c and fsl_imx_udc.c for all recent Freescale SoC's (from
> mx23 to mx6), is it suitable? 3. Create transceiver driver for mx28, and
> it will also be used for mx6.
> 
> Best regards,
> Peter Chen
> 
> MAD Linux BSP Team
> Freescale Semiconductor Ltd.

Hi,

any updates on the MXS USB Host front?

M

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Chen Peter-B29397]

 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> any updates on the MXS USB Host front?
> 
> M

According to maintainer's suggestion, it needs to refine
i.mx usb framework first, then mainline i.mx usb remaining
drivers.

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg55061.html

BR,
Peter

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Marek Vasut]

> > Hi,
> > 
> > any updates on the MXS USB Host front?
> > 
> > M
> 
> According to maintainer's suggestion, it needs to refine
> i.mx usb framework first, then mainline i.mx usb remaining
> drivers.
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg55061.html
> 
> BR,
> Peter

I did read the thread, but did it move anywhere ever since?

M

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Chen Peter-B29397]

 
> 
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > any updates on the MXS USB Host front?
> > >
> > > M
> >
> > According to maintainer's suggestion, it needs to refine
> > i.mx usb framework first, then mainline i.mx usb remaining
> > drivers.
> >
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg55061.html
> >
> > BR,
> > Peter
> 
> I did read the thread, but did it move anywhere ever since?
> 
Now, we have almost finished the step 1.
-- Split phy from OTG structure.

> M

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Marek Vasut]

> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > any updates on the MXS USB Host front?
> > > > 
> > > > M
> > > 
> > > According to maintainer's suggestion, it needs to refine
> > > i.mx usb framework first, then mainline i.mx usb remaining
> > > drivers.
> > > 
> > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg55061.html
> > > 
> > > BR,
> > > Peter
> > 
> > I did read the thread, but did it move anywhere ever since?
> 
> Now, we have almost finished the step 1.
> -- Split phy from OTG structure.

Oh, so you're still working on it. All right then, I'll now dive into the IIO 
LRADC driver and let you handle this.

M

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Fabio Estevam]

Hi Peter,

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, so you're still working on it. All right then, I'll now dive into the IIO
> LRADC driver and let you handle this.

Do you plan to re-submit the mxs usb driver?

Regards,

Fabio Estevam

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Chen Peter-B29397]

 
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Oh, so you're still working on it. All right then, I'll now dive into
> the IIO
> > LRADC driver and let you handle this.
> 
> Do you plan to re-submit the mxs usb driver?
> 
According to sascha's suggestion, it is better to re-submit after we have
a generic USB PHY Layer in mainline.

Currently, Heikki's split PHY from OTG structure patches have mainlined, 
next step is to submit a generic USB PHY driver.

> Regards,
> 
> Fabio Estevam

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Sascha Hauer]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 03:30:26AM +0000, Chen Peter-B29397 wrote:
>  
> > 
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Oh, so you're still working on it. All right then, I'll now dive into
> > the IIO
> > > LRADC driver and let you handle this.
> > 
> > Do you plan to re-submit the mxs usb driver?
> > 
> According to sascha's suggestion, it is better to re-submit after we have
> a generic USB PHY Layer in mainline.
> 
> Currently, Heikki's split PHY from OTG structure patches have mainlined, 
> next step is to submit a generic USB PHY driver.
> 

Cool, sounds like we get dt bindings for the i.MX ehci/otg ;)

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Fabio Estevam]

Hi Peter,

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Chen Peter-B29397
<B29397@freescale.com> wrote:

> According to sascha's suggestion, it is better to re-submit after we have
> a generic USB PHY Layer in mainline.
>
> Currently, Heikki's split PHY from OTG structure patches have mainlined,
> next step is to submit a generic USB PHY driver.

Just for my understanding: is there someone working on this generic
USB PHY driver?

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Chen Peter-B29397]

 
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Chen Peter-B29397
> <B29397@freescale.com> wrote:
> 
> > According to sascha's suggestion, it is better to re-submit after we
> have
> > a generic USB PHY Layer in mainline.
> >
> > Currently, Heikki's split PHY from OTG structure patches have mainlined,
> > next step is to submit a generic USB PHY driver.
> 
> Just for my understanding: is there someone working on this generic
> USB PHY driver?

Add related people.

I have much internal stuff on hands now, and have not bandwidth to do it right now. 

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Chen Peter-B29397,

> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Chen Peter-B29397
> > 
> > <B29397@freescale.com> wrote:
> > > According to sascha's suggestion, it is better to re-submit after we
> > 
> > have
> > 
> > > a generic USB PHY Layer in mainline.
> > > 
> > > Currently, Heikki's split PHY from OTG structure patches have
> > > mainlined, next step is to submit a generic USB PHY driver.
> > 
> > Just for my understanding: is there someone working on this generic
> > USB PHY driver?
> 
> Add related people.
> 
> I have much internal stuff on hands now, and have not bandwidth to do it
> right now.

It's in my queue to look into this too, but it's still low prio biz.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Marek Vasut,

> Dear Chen Peter-B29397,
> 
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Chen Peter-B29397
> > > 
> > > <B29397@freescale.com> wrote:
> > > > According to sascha's suggestion, it is better to re-submit after we
> > > 
> > > have
> > > 
> > > > a generic USB PHY Layer in mainline.
> > > > 
> > > > Currently, Heikki's split PHY from OTG structure patches have
> > > > mainlined, next step is to submit a generic USB PHY driver.
> > > 
> > > Just for my understanding: is there someone working on this generic
> > > USB PHY driver?
> > 
> > Add related people.
> > 
> > I have much internal stuff on hands now, and have not bandwidth to do it
> > right now.
> 
> It's in my queue to look into this too, but it's still low prio biz.

Ok, it just became high-prio biz ...

I have the code in prototype phase, will submit it once customer signs the 
contract (likely next week).

> 
> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Subodh Nijsure]

On 04/06/2012 06:34 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Marek Vasut,
>
>> Dear Chen Peter-B29397,
>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Chen Peter-B29397
>>>>
>>>> <B29397@freescale.com>  wrote:
>>>>> According to sascha's suggestion, it is better to re-submit after we
>>>> have
>>>>
>>>>> a generic USB PHY Layer in mainline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, Heikki's split PHY from OTG structure patches have
>>>>> mainlined, next step is to submit a generic USB PHY driver.
>>>> Just for my understanding: is there someone working on this generic
>>>> USB PHY driver?
>>> Add related people.
>>>
>>> I have much internal stuff on hands now, and have not bandwidth to do it
>>> right now.
>> It's in my queue to look into this too, but it's still low prio biz.
> Ok, it just became high-prio biz ...
>
> I have the code in prototype phase, will submit it once customer signs the
> contract (likely next week).
We have ported USB driver from Freescale's 2.6.35 implementation to 
3.1-rc5 kernel. We are migrating from 3.1-rc5 to 3.4-rc1 so I am 
starting to look at this. Let me know if I can be of any help. I would 
be more than happy to test stuff you have.

-Subodh

Want to Get Suggestion for MX28 USB Submisson

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Subodh Nijsure,

> On 04/06/2012 06:34 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Marek Vasut,
> > 
> >> Dear Chen Peter-B29397,
> >> 
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Chen Peter-B29397
> >>>> 
> >>>> <B29397@freescale.com>  wrote:
> >>>>> According to sascha's suggestion, it is better to re-submit after we
> >>>> 
> >>>> have
> >>>> 
> >>>>> a generic USB PHY Layer in mainline.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Currently, Heikki's split PHY from OTG structure patches have
> >>>>> mainlined, next step is to submit a generic USB PHY driver.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just for my understanding: is there someone working on this generic
> >>>> USB PHY driver?
> >>> 
> >>> Add related people.
> >>> 
> >>> I have much internal stuff on hands now, and have not bandwidth to do
> >>> it right now.
> >> 
> >> It's in my queue to look into this too, but it's still low prio biz.
> > 
> > Ok, it just became high-prio biz ...
> > 
> > I have the code in prototype phase, will submit it once customer signs
> > the contract (likely next week).
> 
> We have ported USB driver from Freescale's 2.6.35 implementation to
> 3.1-rc5 kernel. We are migrating from 3.1-rc5 to 3.4-rc1 so I am
> starting to look at this. Let me know if I can be of any help. I would
> be more than happy to test stuff you have.

Well, I already have this implemented via the generic phy framework, I don't 
think FSL has this too. I'll be more than happy if you helped testing though ;-)

> -Subodh

Best regards,
Marek Vasut