From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: balbi@ti.com (Felipe Balbi) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:45:45 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 4/9] usb: phy: add the Berlin USB PHY driver In-Reply-To: References: <1401983326-19205-1-git-send-email-antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com> <1401983326-19205-5-git-send-email-antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com> <20140606071106.GA30156@kwain> Message-ID: <20140619134545.GB23782@saruman.home> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 04:32:03PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Antoine T?nart > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:09:06PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Antoine T?nart > >> wrote: > >> > Add the driver driving the Marvell Berlin USB PHY. This allows to > >> > initialize the PHY and to use it from the USB driver later. > >> > >> Just out of curiosity, going forward we would like to have phy drivers based on > >> generic phy framework (drivers/phy). > >> Any particular reason that we are still adding phy drivers in usb-phy layer ? > >> > >> Looking at it, seems like it can very well be written based on phy framework. > > > > This USB controller are ChipIdea compatible, and the ChipIdea common > > functions use the usb_phy framework. That's why this PHY driver is > > there. > > Ok, i see that now. In that case shouldn't we be moving even the chipidea > drivers to use the generic phy functions to get the phy and init/exit it. yes, we should :-) > I think Felipe and Kishon can comment on this better, and tell how > things should be. :-) yeah, this will just make it a little more difficult to deprecate current usb phy layer. -- balbi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: