[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51AA07B7.4020901@cogentembedded.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 18:39:51 +0400
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To: "B, Ravi" <ravibabu@...com>
CC: "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Balbi, Felipe" <balbi@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 8/9] usb: phy: dts: Adding usbphy DT bindings for am33xx
Hello.
On 24-05-2013 9:34, B, Ravi wrote:
>>>> + phy1: usbphy-gs70@...10620 {
>>>> + compatible = "ti,dsps-usbphy";
>>>> + reg = <0x44e10620 0x8
>>>> + 0x44e10648 0x4>;
>>>> + reg-names = "phy_ctrl","phy_wkup";
>>>> + id = <0>;
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> + phy2: usbphy-gs70@...10628 {
>>>> + compatible = "ti,dsps-usbphy";
>>>> + reg = <0x44e10628 0x8
>>>> + 0x44e10648 0x4>;
>>> The second register conflicts with phy1.
>> The two instances of phy uses common phy wakeup register.
>>> That's why there is a resource conflict. Have you actually tried to instantiate the devices out of such tree?
>>> This register should be declared somewhere above the PHYs I think...
> I did not face any problem with this, I have tested both instances of phy used by dual instance controller, worked fine.
How your /proc/iomem looks like with that?
> What do you suggest, in case of common register which both phy have to use this for wakeup functionality.
> The DT should support this. What do you suggest in such case?
I'd probably have to create a third device for this shared register...
> --
> Ravi B
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists