[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111108150441.GI20728@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:04:43 +0200
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To: "ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY" <kishon@...com>
Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 01/19] usb: otg: Rename otg_transceiver to usb_phy
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 08:28:15PM +0530, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Heikki Krogerus
> <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:27:12AM +0530, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote:
> >> Hi Heikki,
> >>
> >> I tend to defer with your opinion of renaming otg_transceiver to
> >> usb_phy. According to me otg_transceiver should program hardware
> >> mechanisms associated to VBUS, ID lines, etc.. and phy is responsible
> >> for transmitting data over differential data lines (with its own
> >> programming of phy_init, phy_shutdown, setting phy clocks etc..). So
> >> in my opinion otg_transceiver and usb_phy should be two different and
> >> separate entities.
> >
> > Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but sounds like you are still marrying
> > OTG with transceivers.
> I'm against the idea of usb_phy married with the transceiver (i.e
> transceiver = twl6030 for instance)
I think the source of confusion is the split phy functionality on OMAPs.
twl6030 basically provides VBUS/ID comparators which communicate VBUS/ID
levels to internal PHY via a well-defined mailbox. We need a
good way to write that down in source code.
--
balbi
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists