i.MX USB Re-Structure

i.MX USB Re-Structure

[Peter Chen]

Hi Sascha,

Recently, Alexander Shishkin has posted new chipidea patchset
(http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg62975.html)
to support USB driver who use chipidea core. In his structure,
all controller related files (like ehci-mxc.c, fsl-udc-core.c, etc)
will be drivers/usb/chipidea, and no related file will be host, gadget
and otg again.

So, it will be different with marek has posted i.mx28 USB driver,
and also different with your proposal in the past. But I think
you and marek may prefer Alexander's structure, and would like
use it for i.mx in future, correct?

If it is, I may need to cease Freescale i.mx6q USB driver development
with your old proposal (Marek mx28 style's). Let me know your suggestion.

-- 

Best Regards,
Peter Chen

i.MX USB Re-Structure

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Peter Chen,

> Hi Sascha,
> 
> Recently, Alexander Shishkin has posted new chipidea patchset
> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg62975.html)
> to support USB driver who use chipidea core. In his structure,
> all controller related files (like ehci-mxc.c, fsl-udc-core.c, etc)
> will be drivers/usb/chipidea, and no related file will be host, gadget
> and otg again.
> 
> So, it will be different with marek has posted i.mx28 USB driver,
> and also different with your proposal in the past. But I think
> you and marek may prefer Alexander's structure, and would like
> use it for i.mx in future, correct?

I noticed the patchset, I don't mind doing another round of rework. The patches 
look very good actually, very helpful for our purpose too.

> If it is, I may need to cease Freescale i.mx6q USB driver development
> with your old proposal (Marek mx28 style's). Let me know your suggestion.

SHA's adding mx6q support to my patches?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

i.MX USB Re-Structure

[Sascha Hauer]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 02:05:24PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> Hi Sascha,
> 
> Recently, Alexander Shishkin has posted new chipidea patchset
> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg62975.html)
> to support USB driver who use chipidea core. In his structure,
> all controller related files (like ehci-mxc.c, fsl-udc-core.c, etc)
> will be drivers/usb/chipidea, and no related file will be host, gadget
> and otg again.
> 
> So, it will be different with marek has posted i.mx28 USB driver,
> and also different with your proposal in the past. But I think
> you and marek may prefer Alexander's structure, and would like
> use it for i.mx in future, correct?

I was not aware of this patchset. I only had a short look at it, but
yes, it seems to be the way to go, for all SoCs supporting this
hardware, be it i.MX, MXS or something else.

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 |

i.MX USB Re-Structure

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Sascha Hauer,

> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 02:05:24PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> > Hi Sascha,
> > 
> > Recently, Alexander Shishkin has posted new chipidea patchset
> > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg62975.html)
> > to support USB driver who use chipidea core. In his structure,
> > all controller related files (like ehci-mxc.c, fsl-udc-core.c, etc)
> > will be drivers/usb/chipidea, and no related file will be host, gadget
> > and otg again.
> > 
> > So, it will be different with marek has posted i.mx28 USB driver,
> > and also different with your proposal in the past. But I think
> > you and marek may prefer Alexander's structure, and would like
> > use it for i.mx in future, correct?
> 
> I was not aware of this patchset. I only had a short look at it, but
> yes, it seems to be the way to go, for all SoCs supporting this
> hardware, be it i.MX, MXS or something else.

Correct, I can't but agree here.

> Sascha

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

i.MX USB Re-Structure

[Subodh Nijsure]

On 05/10/2012 06:12 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Sascha Hauer,
>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 02:05:24PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
>>> Hi Sascha,
>>>
>>> Recently, Alexander Shishkin has posted new chipidea patchset
>>> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg62975.html)
>>> to support USB driver who use chipidea core. In his structure,
>>> all controller related files (like ehci-mxc.c, fsl-udc-core.c, etc)
>>> will be drivers/usb/chipidea, and no related file will be host, gadget
>>> and otg again.
>>>
>>> So, it will be different with marek has posted i.mx28 USB driver,
>>> and also different with your proposal in the past. But I think
>>> you and marek may prefer Alexander's structure, and would like
>>> use it for i.mx in future, correct?
>> I was not aware of this patchset. I only had a short look at it, but
>> yes, it seems to be the way to go, for all SoCs supporting this
>> hardware, be it i.MX, MXS or something else.
> Correct, I can't but agree here.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg63064.html

In followup message referenced above Felipe Balbi said he can't put 
above patch in v3.5 pull and has to be deferred till 3.6.

So are we left with roll your own i.MX USB support for 3.5? Is Marek's 
work going to be part of 3.5 pull?

-Subodh

i.MX USB Re-Structure

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Subodh Nijsure,

> On 05/10/2012 06:12 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Sascha Hauer,
> > 
> >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 02:05:24PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> >>> Hi Sascha,
> >>> 
> >>> Recently, Alexander Shishkin has posted new chipidea patchset
> >>> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg62975.html)
> >>> to support USB driver who use chipidea core. In his structure,
> >>> all controller related files (like ehci-mxc.c, fsl-udc-core.c, etc)
> >>> will be drivers/usb/chipidea, and no related file will be host, gadget
> >>> and otg again.
> >>> 
> >>> So, it will be different with marek has posted i.mx28 USB driver,
> >>> and also different with your proposal in the past. But I think
> >>> you and marek may prefer Alexander's structure, and would like
> >>> use it for i.mx in future, correct?
> >> 
> >> I was not aware of this patchset. I only had a short look at it, but
> >> yes, it seems to be the way to go, for all SoCs supporting this
> >> hardware, be it i.MX, MXS or something else.
> > 
> > Correct, I can't but agree here.
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg63064.html
> 
> In followup message referenced above Felipe Balbi said he can't put
> above patch in v3.5 pull and has to be deferred till 3.6.
> 
> So are we left with roll your own i.MX USB support for 3.5? Is Marek's
> work going to be part of 3.5 pull?

It won't, it's still RFC. Also, I'd like to flip my work on top of this ci13xxx 
rework. But for that, it'd be cool if it was possible to push it into v3.5, it'd 
help a lot. So can we possibly make a compromise in here ?

> 
> -Subodh

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

i.MX USB Re-Structure

[Chen Peter-B29397]

 
> 
> > If it is, I may need to cease Freescale i.mx6q USB driver development
> > with your old proposal (Marek mx28 style's). Let me know your
> suggestion.
> 
> SHA's adding mx6q support to my patches?
> 
Sorry, who is SHA?

> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut

i.MX USB Re-Structure

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Chen Peter-B29397,

> > > If it is, I may need to cease Freescale i.mx6q USB driver development
> > > with your old proposal (Marek mx28 style's). Let me know your
> > 
> > suggestion.
> > 
> > SHA's adding mx6q support to my patches?
> 
> Sorry, who is SHA?

Sascha Hauer ... I guess ?

> 
> > Best regards,
> > Marek Vasut

Best regards,
Marek Vasut