| Message ID | 1431954389-6433-11-git-send-email-bhuvanchandra.dv@toradex.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Stefano Babic |
| Headers | show |
On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 03:06:28 PM, Bhuvanchandra DV wrote: > From: Sanchayan Maity <maitysanchayan@gmail.com> > > Add a weak function board_ehci_hcd_init which can be used by the board > file for board specific initialisation. > > Signed-off-by: Sanchayan Maity <maitysanchayan@gmail.com> Acked-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> What I do not like is that you're sending a patch series which affects multiple subsystems and which contains patches which should go through multiple trees. Yet, you submit it all in one huge series. I guess the best way out of this is to push all this stuff via u-boot-imx now? Best regards, Marek Vasut
Hello Marek, On 15-05-18 19:09:58, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 03:06:28 PM, Bhuvanchandra DV wrote: > > From: Sanchayan Maity <maitysanchayan@gmail.com> > > > > Add a weak function board_ehci_hcd_init which can be used by the board > > file for board specific initialisation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sanchayan Maity <maitysanchayan@gmail.com> > > Acked-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> > > What I do not like is that you're sending a patch series which affects > multiple subsystems and which contains patches which should go through > multiple trees. Yet, you submit it all in one huge series. If required I can send in the last two patches affecting the USB susbsystem later once the rest of the patchset gets merged, if this is not acceptable?. Since these last two were dependent on the GPIO patches I thought perhaps it is better that they go along with the GPIO patches as a coherent whole. > > I guess the best way out of this is to push all this stuff via u-boot-imx now? > > Best regards, > Marek Vasut Thanks & Regards, Sanchayan Maity.
On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 08:52:59 PM, maitysanchayan@gmail.com wrote: > Hello Marek, Hi! > On 15-05-18 19:09:58, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 03:06:28 PM, Bhuvanchandra DV wrote: > > > From: Sanchayan Maity <maitysanchayan@gmail.com> > > > > > > Add a weak function board_ehci_hcd_init which can be used by the board > > > file for board specific initialisation. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sanchayan Maity <maitysanchayan@gmail.com> > > > > Acked-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> > > > > What I do not like is that you're sending a patch series which affects > > multiple subsystems and which contains patches which should go through > > multiple trees. Yet, you submit it all in one huge series. > > If required I can send in the last two patches affecting the USB > susbsystem later once the rest of the patchset gets merged, if this is > not acceptable?. > > Since these last two were dependent on the GPIO patches I thought > perhaps it is better that they go along with the GPIO patches as a > coherent whole. I think if there's no oposition, just push this all via u-boot-imx . I don't plan to block it, but subsystem stuff should usually go though subsystem trees. Best regards, Marek Vasut
diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-vf.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-vf.c index 5454855..98e0fc6 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-vf.c +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-vf.c @@ -121,6 +121,11 @@ static void usb_oc_config(int index) setbits_le32(ctrl, UCTRL_OVER_CUR_DIS); } +int __weak board_ehci_hcd_init(int port) +{ + return 0; +} + int ehci_hcd_init(int index, enum usb_init_type init, struct ehci_hccr **hccr, struct ehci_hcor **hcor) { @@ -136,6 +141,9 @@ int ehci_hcd_init(int index, enum usb_init_type init, ehci = (struct usb_ehci *)nc_reg_bases[index]; + /* Do board specific initialisation */ + board_ehci_hcd_init(index); + usb_power_config(index); usb_oc_config(index); usb_internal_phy_clock_gate(index);