Re: [RFC] usb-phy-generic: Add support to SMSC USB3315

[Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>]

On 04/19/2017 01:24 PM, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:

>>> We need the SMSC USB3315 clock and regulator to always be initialized.
>>> We also need the PHY driver to take the PHY out of reset. This patch
>>> extends the existing USB generic nop phy driver to include a new
>>> initialization path.
>>>
>>> A new compatible string "smsc,usb3315" is used to decide which
>>> initialization path to use.
>>>
>>> CC: Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com>
>>> CC: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
>>> CC: Fabien Lahoudere <fabien.lahoudere@collabora.co.uk>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@collabora.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> This is a follow-up of previous discussion:
>>>   https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg146680.html
>>>
>>>  drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>  drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.h |  1 +
>>>  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c
>>> index 89d6e7a..6ea9ce4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c
>> [...]
>>> @@ -216,18 +221,29 @@ static int nop_set_host(struct usb_otg *otg, struct usb_bus *host)
>>>  	otg->host = host;
>>>  	return 0;
>>>  }
>>
>>    Need empty line here.
>>
>>> +int smsc_usb3315_init(struct usb_phy_generic *nop)
>>> +{
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * If the gpio for controlling reset state is not available, try again
>>> +	 * later
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if(!nop->gpiod_reset)
>>
>>    You hadn't run the patch thru scripts/checkpatch.pl before posting --
>> need space between *if* and (.
>>
>> [...]
>>> @@ -304,6 +320,12 @@ int usb_phy_gen_create_phy(struct device *dev, struct usb_phy_generic *nop,
>>>  	nop->phy.otg->set_host		= nop_set_host;
>>>  	nop->phy.otg->set_peripheral	= nop_set_peripheral;
>>>
>>> +	if(node && of_device_is_compatible(node, "smsc,usb3315")) {
>>
>>    Same here.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> MBR, Sergei
>
> Thank you for the review Sergei! Should I send V2 of this RFC fixing
> these issues or wait for comments on the validity of this approach?

    Wait, of course, if this is RFC...

WBR, Sergei