[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1903281009430.1448-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:11:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: davinci: ohci-da8xx: model the vbus GPIO as a
fixed regulator
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> >> Can you document why the current solution is not optimal? Is it to make
> >> future device-tree conversion for these boards easier? Or?
> >>
> >
> > It's sub-optimal from the HW modeling in SW PoV - it is in fact a
> > regulator enabled/disabled by a GPIO. Also: it's code duplication as
> > currently we check if the vbus GPIO exists and then use it or check if
> > the regulator exists and use this as the second choice. The third
> > patch actually shrinks the driver.
>
> I see now that the driver supports controlling the VBUS gpio as
> regulator already. Something I should have caught in review last time
> around.
>
> I agree this patch is an improvement. Lets see what Alan feels.
I'm not an expert on this stuff, but the patch looks reasonable.
However, I do wish that in the devm_request_threaded_irq() call, the
indentation of the continuation lines was left unchanged.
Alan Stern
> Also, reg_enabled member of da8xx_ohci_hcd structure seems to be pretty
> useless considering regulator API already has use counting. Can you take
> a look and remove that too as an added bonus.
>
> Thanks,
> Sekhar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists