From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760501Ab3LIEKi (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:10:38 -0500 Received: from mail.fpasia.hk ([202.130.89.98]:58220 "EHLO fpa01n0.fpasia.hk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755693Ab3LIEKg (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:10:36 -0500 Message-ID: <52A5430A.5010308@gtsys.com.hk> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:11:54 +0800 From: Chris Ruehl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131104 Icedove/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: balbi@ti.com CC: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] usb: phy-generic: Add GPIO based ChipSelect References: <1385967919-13258-1-git-send-email-chris.ruehl@gtsys.com.hk> <1385967919-13258-2-git-send-email-chris.ruehl@gtsys.com.hk> <20131206202453.GF21086@saruman.home> <52A520BA.1000603@gtsys.com.hk> <20131209040705.GB20608@saruman.home> In-Reply-To: <20131209040705.GB20608@saruman.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday, December 09, 2013 12:07 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 09:45:30AM +0800, Chris Ruehl wrote: >> On Saturday, December 07, 2013 04:24 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 03:05:17PM +0800, Chris Ruehl wrote: >>>> @@ -231,27 +249,40 @@ static int usb_phy_gen_xceiv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> return -ENOMEM; >>>> >>>> nop->reset_active_low = true; /* default behaviour */ >>>> + nop->cs_active_low = true; >>>> >>>> if (dev->of_node) { >>>> struct device_node *node = dev->of_node; >>>> enum of_gpio_flags flags; >>>> + enum of_gpio_flags csflags; >>>> >>>> if (of_property_read_u32(node, "clock-frequency",&clk_rate)) >>>> clk_rate = 0; >>>> >>>> needs_vcc = of_property_read_bool(node, "vcc-supply"); >>>> + >>>> nop->gpio_reset = of_get_named_gpio_flags(node, "reset-gpios", >>>> 0,&flags); >>>> + >>> two unrelated changes >>> >>>> if (nop->gpio_reset == -EPROBE_DEFER) >>>> return -EPROBE_DEFER; >>>> >>>> nop->reset_active_low = flags& OF_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW; >>>> >>>> + nop->gpio_chipselect = of_get_named_gpio_flags(node, "cs-gpios", >>>> + 0,&csflags); >>>> + if (gpio_is_valid(nop->gpio_chipselect)) >>>> + nop->cs_active_low = csflags& OF_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW; >>>> + >>>> } else if (pdata) { >>>> type = pdata->type; >>>> clk_rate = pdata->clk_rate; >>>> needs_vcc = pdata->needs_vcc; >>>> nop->gpio_reset = pdata->gpio_reset; >>>> + nop->gpio_chipselect = pdata->gpio_chipselect; >>>> + } else { >>>> + nop->gpio_reset = -1; >>> This line is already going upstream, please remove it, i'll handle the >>> conflict later. >>> >> Beause the rest of the patch set is not ready to make it in the >> upstream, I will checkout latest linux-next and send the patch again >> as a single patch. > no, please *never* base any patches off of linux-next. That tree gets > recreated every day and can never be considered stable. Aim at using a > tag from Linus instead (v3.13-rc3, for example). It's a much better > development point than linux-next. > > In case patch doesn't apply cleanly, different maintainers will have > their choice of rebasing it themselves or asking author to rebase on a > specific branch. > > By default, however, use a tag from Linus. > > cheers > Thanks for the advice, I will follow :-) Chris