From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752301Ab1GSXvG (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:51:06 -0400 Received: from hqemgate04.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.35]:14545 "EHLO hqemgate04.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751942Ab1GSXvE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:51:04 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp05.nvidia.com on Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:50:54 -0700 From: Andrew Chew To: Stephen Warren , "grant.likely@secretlab.ca" , "olof@lixom.net" , Dan Willemsen , Rhyland Klein , Venkat Moganty CC: "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:50:53 -0700 Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] dt: tegra20: Add ehci nodes to Seaboard. Thread-Topic: [PATCH 3/3] dt: tegra20: Add ehci nodes to Seaboard. Thread-Index: AcxGZjkx5ggFPfwHSci0NC6oKmMXGAAAYWJQAAGgtVA= Message-ID: <643E69AA4436674C8F39DCC2C05F76383CF0DD2271@HQMAIL03.nvidia.com> References: <1311115617-9697-1-git-send-email-achew@nvidia.com> <1311115617-9697-3-git-send-email-achew@nvidia.com> <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF049EBDED2A@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF049EBDED2A@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Although that said, since many of the USB properties are > board-specific > and determined by system characterization, they aren't generally > applicable to all Tegra devices. As such, should those values be moved > into tegra-seaboard.dts instead? Perhaps tegra20.dtsi should specify > the default values that the driver currently uses if not supplied with > platform data though... I think the Seaboard values are the defaults, > which still would make this patch obsolete. Turns out the ones I put in tegra20.dtsi are NOT the defaults. The defaults are in arch/arm/mach-tegra/usb_phy.c, contained in "utmip_defaults[]". I think I'm going to put those utmip_defaults[] stuff into tegra20.dtsi, and override them in tegra-seaboard.dts. How's that sound? And since there are defaults specified in tegra20.dtsi, does it really make sense to also have default values assigned in ehci-tegra.c (for when a property is not present)? I worry that the information is now duplicated. If those properties aren't present, then someone's mucked with the tegra20.dtsi ehci properties.