[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150127125739.GF28539@kuha.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:57:39 +0200
From: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To: David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] phy: add driver for TI TUSB1210 ULPI PHY
Hi guys,
> I'm only using the init and exit hooks instead of just
> power_on/power_off because I'm not sure which the controllers will
> use. For example, now dwc3 calls phy_init() in it's resume routine and
> not phy_power_on() like I would expect. I know the problem has been
> pointed out by others, so I'm expecting we'll get guidelines for it
> later. But before we do, I see no harm in having both init and
> power_on hooks in this driver.
I'm unable to find the thread where somebody mentioned that, but I
don't actually think there is any reason why we couldn't just call
phy_power_on/off instead of phy_init/exit in dwc3_suspend/resume like
I think we should. I'll add one more patch where I'll change it.
Felipe, is it OK?
Thanks,
--
heikki
--
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