Re: [PATCH 00/24] ARM: OMAP2+: Adapt to ehci-omap changes for 3.10

Tony Lindgren
2013-03-13T16:24:59Z

* Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> [130313 06:46]:
> On 03/12/2013 06:40 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> [130312 04:47]:
> >> Hi Tony,
> >>
> >> These patches provide the SoC side code required to support
> >> the changes in the OMAP USB Host drivers done in [1], [2] & [3].
> > ...
> >
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-3430sdp.c | 97 +++++++++++++++-
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-3630sdp.c | 100 +++++++++++++++-
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-am3517crane.c | 95 +++++++++++++--
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-am3517evm.c | 66 ++++++++++-
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-cm-t35.c | 95 ++++++++++++++-
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-cm-t3517.c | 97 +++++++++++++++-
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-devkit8000.c | 20 ++--
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c | 67 +++++++++++
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-igep0020.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++---
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3beagle.c | 93 +++++++++++++--
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3evm.c | 62 ++++++++--
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3pandora.c | 52 +++++++--
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3stalker.c | 52 +++++++-
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3touchbook.c | 62 +++++++++-
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap4panda.c | 122 ++++++++++++++------
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-overo.c | 54 ++++++++-
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-zoom.c | 56 ++++++++-
> >
> > Can't you have some mach-omap2/ehci-common.c that takes care
> > of the initializiation to avoid this much addition to the
> > board-*.c files? You may be able to have just a common function
> > to do it and pass few parameters?
>
> Since we moved reset and power handling for the USB PHYs from omap-echi
> driver into the USB PHY driver we need to define the regulator data
> for RESET and Power line of each PHY. So most of the code added is just
> regulator data for the PHY rather than omap-ehci.

It seems that you're now repeating minor variations of the same PHY
over and over again though.

> Instead of a common function, I can implement some macros that make it
> easier to define the regulators for the PHY in the board files.
> Does this sound OK?
>
> Personally I don't like such macros because it hides the implementation
> and is difficult to read/debug.

I'd prefer a common function to initialize the PHY though as it sounds
like using macros would just allocate similar PHY many times which seems
unnecessary.

Regards,

Tony