[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFBinCCq8eZs+mirGg4qih4B0Oux-58jRkQXGmuCMOA-GmxrUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 00:06:48 +0200
From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: hminas@...opsys.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
mark.rutland@....com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
amelie.delaunay@...com, felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: usb: dwc2: document the vbus-supply property
Hi Rob,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 9:00 PM Martin Blumenstingl
<martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.txt
> > > index 6dc3c4a34483..1e8a775a0e72 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.txt
> > > @@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ Refer to clk/clock-bindings.txt for generic clock consumer properties
> > > Optional properties:
> > > - phys: phy provider specifier
> > > - phy-names: shall be "usb2-phy"
> > > +- vbus-supply: reference to the VBUS regulator. Depending on the current mode
> > > + this is enabled (in "host" mode") or disabled (in "peripheral" mode). The
> > > + regulator is updated if the controller is configured in "otg" mode and the
> > > + status changes between "host" and "peripheral".
> >
> > This is actually wrong IMO unless Vbus is powering the controller
> > itself. If it is just a regulator routed to the USB connector, then the
> > DT should use the usb-connector binding and put vbus-supply there. If
> > the driver needs it, then it can walk the tree/graph and get it. For
> > some reason folks seem to think everything the driver needs has to be in
> > the node associated with the driver.
> I didn't know about the usb-connector binding yet - thank you for
> pointing it out (rather than saying that this is bad without giving a
> reason)!
>
> do you want me to re-spin this with a notice (stating that this should
> be implemented in another way)?
please let me know whether I should re-spin this with a notice.
if not: can you please take this patch through your tree?
Thank you!
Martin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists