From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754455AbaFLUjx (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:39:53 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:55620 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754118AbaFLUjK (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:39:10 -0400 Message-ID: <539A0FE9.1080802@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:39:05 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thierry Reding , Linus Walleij CC: Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Andrew Bresticker , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] pinctrl: Add NVIDIA Tegra XUSB pad controller support References: <1402398708-10722-1-git-send-email-thierry.reding@gmail.com> <1402398708-10722-2-git-send-email-thierry.reding@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1402398708-10722-2-git-send-email-thierry.reding@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/10/2014 05:11 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > From: Thierry Reding > > The XUSB pad controller found on NVIDIA Tegra SoCs provides several pads > that lanes can be assigned to in order to support a variety of interface > options: USB 2.0, USB 3.0, PCIe and SATA. > > In addition to the pin controller used to assign lanes to pads two PHYs > are exposed to allow the bricks for PCIe and SATA to be powered up and > down by PCIe and SATA drivers. Aside from the issue Andrew pointed out, this series looks good to me. I'll apply once that one issue is fixed. Linus, Patch 2 (pinctrl driver) depends on patch 1 (binding header), and there are other patches that will also depend on the binding header in patch 1. I guess I should apply patch 1 in a topic branch and send you a pull request which you can merge before applying patch 2. Does that sound OK to you?