From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com (Heikki Krogerus) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:31:34 +0300 Subject: [PATCH v2 03/22] usb: ulpi: Support device discovery via device properties In-Reply-To: References: <20160707222114.1673-1-stephen.boyd@linaro.org> <20160707222114.1673-4-stephen.boyd@linaro.org> <20160708090458.GB20485@shlinux2> <147043245520.26915.14153612182716236022@sboyd-linaro> Message-ID: <20160824073134.GB12117@kuha.fi.intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:58:07PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Peter Chen (2016-07-08 02:04:58) > >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:20:54PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> > @@ -39,6 +42,10 @@ static int ulpi_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *driver) > >> > struct ulpi *ulpi = to_ulpi_dev(dev); > >> > const struct ulpi_device_id *id; > >> > > >> > + /* Some ULPI devices don't have a product id so rely on OF match */ > >> > + if (ulpi->id.product == 0) > >> > + return of_driver_match_device(dev, driver); > >> > + > >> > >> How about using vendor id? It can't be 0, but pid may be 0. > >> See: http://www.linux-usb.org/usb.ids > > > > Heikki suggested a product id of 0 would mean we need to use DT > > matching. Should it be changed to vendor id instead? > > Any comments here? It makes sense. I don't have any problem with that. Thanks, -- heikki