Re: RFC: Platform data for onboard USB assets

Greg KH
2011-03-11T16:36:58Z

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 04:20:46PM +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> On 03/11/2011 04:08 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> >On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:50:32AM +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> >>The particular use that suggested this is on Panda, it would be
> >>ideal to be able to set a flag in the usb device's platform data
> >>that forces it to be named eth%d since it's a hardwired asset on the
> >>board with an RJ45 socket.
> >
> >If you _really_ need to name your network devices in a specific order,
> >then use the userspace tools we already have to do this. That is what
> >they were created for, why ignore them?
>
> I think maybe discussion of this use-case, its usbnet specificity,
> and the alternative options to achieve that have derailed discussion
> about what I was actually asking.
>
> Is it true that for on-board devices, it can sometimes be legitimate
> and useful to be able to deliver platform_data from the board file
> through to stuff on a USB bus, same as you would for memory mapped,
> I2C, other busses?
>
> Or is that it since it is USB, it can never be useful or legitimate,
> no matter what different kind of wired-up on-board USB device it is,
> to have the board definition file configure the driver for that
> instantiation?

Since it is USB, it is always discoverable, so it doesn't make any sense
to have this type of thing.

And since your only example was a network device, I think you proved
your point :)

thanks,

greg k-h