Re: [PATCH v3 resend] USB: PHY: Re-organize Tegra USB PHY driver

[Felipe Balbi]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 02:00:00PM +0530, Venu Byravarasu wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Felipe Balbi [mailto:balbi@xxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:06 PM
> > To: Venu Byravarasu
> > Cc: stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > balbi@xxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 resend] USB: PHY: Re-organize Tegra USB PHY driver
> > 
> > * PGP Signed by an unknown key
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:08:05PM +0530, Venu Byravarasu wrote:
> > > NVIDIA produces several Tegra SoCs viz Tegra20, Tegra30 etc.
> > 
> > I was reading this "driver" more closely and I have a bunch of questions
> > about it, but the most important of all of them is: "why isn't that a
> > real PHY driver ?". It doesn't have a probe() function, it doesn't use
> > struct usb_phy to represent the PHY, it has a bunch of tegra-specific
> > APIs and we can't let those continue.
> > 
> > Please, take a look at drivers/usb/phy/omap_usb2.c (misnamed actually,
> > should be phy-omap-usb2.c so we have a common prefix) to see how your
> > PHY driver should look like and which sort of functionality if should
> > expose to the rest of the kernel.
> 
> Hi Felipe, 
> 
> I'll go through omap phy driver and prepare similar patches for tegra
> phy driver and push them with upcoming patches.
> As current patch is mostly re-organizing the existing phy driver, can
> you plz merge This as is?

I would have to convince me about the need for that (and I'm open to be
convinced ;-), because if a later series of patches will come getting
rid of the current driver and turning it into a real PHY driver, I don't
see the benefit of taking $SUBJECT.

-- 
balbi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature