From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753042AbbAULmZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 06:42:25 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:34981 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752135AbbAULmL (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 06:42:11 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,441,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="665171960" Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:39:58 +0200 From: Heikki Krogerus To: Felipe Balbi , Alexander Shishkin Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Baolu Lu , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] phy: ulpi: add driver for TI TUSB1210 Message-ID: <20150121113958.GC22716@kuha.fi.intel.com> References: <1421745502-169447-1-git-send-email-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> <1421745502-169447-4-git-send-email-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> <20150120154539.GB8988@saruman> <20150121091749.GB22716@kuha.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150121091749.GB22716@kuha.fi.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:17:49AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:45:39AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/phy/ulpi/tusb1210.c b/drivers/phy/ulpi/tusb1210.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..ac77f98 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/drivers/phy/ulpi/tusb1210.c > > > > do you really need this extra ulpi directory ? > > > > I wonder if phy-tusb1210.c as a name would be enough. > > IMO grouping the ULPI PHY drivers and other ULPI bus code into > separate folder from the start is the right thing to do. A correction to this comment. I probable don't need this folder. Like you said, phy-tusb1210.c should be enough.. > > In fact, we might decide to add an entire ULPI bus, eventually, though > > I'm still considering if there's any benefit to that. > > I don't think I understand this comment? ULPI bus is what I'm > introducing in this set (the first patch in it)? ..I talked with Alex about this :). So I think the bus belongs under drivers/usb/core/ instead of driver/phy/. It's not really tied to the Generic PHY framework in any way, but ULPI is of course USB specific. Cheers, -- heikki