[PATCH 1/2] ARM: Kirkwood: ehci-orion: Add device tree binding

[Olof Johansson]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:13:53AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > +Required properties:
> > > +- compatible: must be "marvell,orion-ehci"
> > > +- reg: physical base address of the controller and length of memory mapped
> > > +  region.
> > > +- interrupts: The EHCI interrupt
> > > +- phy-version: Can be one of:
> > > +  "NA" - Don't touch the phy, something else has already configured it.
> > > +  "orion5x" - PHY setup as specified by the Orion5x Errata
> > > +
> > > +Example:
> > > +
> > > +       ehci at 50000 {
> > > +               compatible = "marvell,orion-ehci";
> > > +               reg = <0x50000 0x1000>;
> > > +               interrupts = <19>;
> > > +               phy-version = "NA";
> > > +       };
> > 
> > This isn't an appropriate binding for phy. I know, it maps straight
> > over from the platform data, but it doesn't focus on what the actual
> > hardware is.
> > 
> > A couple of options. What probably makes most sense depending on how
> > other phy bindings are moving ahead is to add a phy node under the
> > ehci controller for the "orion5x" case, and have an appropriate
> > compatible value there. No node means the same as "NA" in the above
> > binding. Alternatively, have a phy phandle that points to the phy
> > device if it sits on an i2c bus, etc.
> 
> I Olaf
> 
> Could i suggest a third option:
> 
> I just drop USB phy configuration all together.  Only mach-orion5x
> needs this and nobody has shown any interest in moving mach-orion5x to
> DT. So i would just hard code it to "NA".
> 
> If anybody does show interest in DT for orion5x, we can add a phy node
> under ehci as a pure extension which does not affect backward
> compatibility.

Yeah, that works too.


-Olof