linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 00/12] Tegra xHCI support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL1qeaEmSphLd=k3f6865OEO_rcwO3+Hv5KDvCN2_=7nDdZJzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:27:36 -0800
From:	Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 00/12] Tegra xHCI support

Hi Thierry,

> Sorry for taking so awfully long to look at this. I've spent some time
> looking at various pieces of documentation and I concluded that
> representing the port assignment as muxing options doesn't seem right
> after all. Instead I've come up with an alternate proposal (attached).
> Could you take a look and see if that sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for taking a look at this.  I've been meaning to pick this
series back up, but haven't had quite enough bandwidth lately.

This all looks good to me, just one comment below:

> +PHY nodes:
> +----------
> +
> +An optional child node named "phys" can contain nodes describing additional
> +properties of each PHY. Only USB3 and UTMI PHYs can be complemented in this
> +way, in which case the name of each node must match one of the following:
> +
> +  usb3-0, usb3-1, utmi-0, utmi-1, utmi-2
> +
> +Required properties for USB3 PHYs:
> +- nvidia,lanes: specifies the name of the lane that this USB3 PHY uses
> +- nvidia,port: specifies the number of the USB2 port that is used for this
> +  USB3 PHY
> +
> +Optional properties for UTMI PHYs:
> +- vbus-supply: regulator providing the VBUS voltage for the UTMI pad

What about the HSIC PHYs?  Shouldn't they be represented as PHY nodes as well?
--
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/