From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ns4.townisp.com (ns4a.townisp.com [216.195.0.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ns4.townisp.com", Issuer "ns4.townisp.com" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F0167B83 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 02:38:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from gemini.home.net (dhcp-0-10-57-0-7-57.cpe.townisp.com [64.30.85.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns4.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D1A29984 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:14:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Jamie Guinan To: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org Subject: Rattler 8347 and USB 2.0 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: Jamie Guinan List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Greetings, I have an mpc8347 board here (A&M Rattler 8347). It shipped with a 2.6.16 patched enough to boot the board, but support for freescale USB 2.0 (ehci) is not present. Working my way backwards in the mainline kernel tree (2.6.18-rc5), I found drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c, for FreeScale/PPC EHCI support. In that module, usb_hcd_fsl_probe() requires an initialized "struct fsl_usb2_platform_data", which only appears in arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c, yet the 2.6.16 patch provided puts the board in arch/ppc. My question is, what would be the best way to go about getting ehci-fsl.c working with this board? 1) Nudge the Rattler port from arch/ppc to arch/powerpc. One problem with this is that the rattler uses RedBoot, and reading this, http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/2006-August/024116.html it looks like arch/powerpc wants to boot from OpenFirmware-like "flattened device tree" (does RedBoot support this?). 2) Support ehci-fsl.c from arch/ppc. If arch/ppc is deprecated, that's a bad long-term solution. And since fsl_soc.c lives under arch/powerpc, that doesn't look good either. Thoughts? -Jamie