[PATCH RFC] usb: dwc3: Get PHY from platform specific dwc3 dt node.

[Vivek Gautam]

Hi Balbi,


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Vivek Gautam <gautamvivek1987 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Kishon,
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM, kishon <kishon at ti.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 31 January 2013 09:08 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:00:37PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Felipe,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi at ti.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 08:53:27PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moreover, SoCs having multiple dwc3 controllers will have multiple
>>>>>>>> PHYs, which eventually be added using usb_add_phy_dev(), and not
>>>>>>>> using usb_add_phy(). So each dwc3 controller won't be able to
>>>>>>>> get PHYs by simply calling devm_usb_get_phy() also.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. We have added usb_get_phy_dev() for that purpose in the case of
>>>>>>> non-dt.
>>>>>>> I think, instead you can have a patch to use devm_usb_get_phy_dev()
>>>>>>> here and
>>>>>>> in exynos platform specific code use usb_bind_phy() to bind the phy
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> controller till you change it to dt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have dt support for dwc3-exynos, in such case we should go ahead
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> of_platform_populate(), right ?
>>>>>> But if when i use of_platform_populate() i will not be able to set
>>>>>> dma_mask to dwc3->dev. :-(
>>
>>
>> You can do something like this
>>
>> static u64 dwc3_exynos_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>>
>> static int dwc3_exynos_set_dmamask(struct device *dev, void *c)
>> {
>>         dev->dma_mask = &dwc3_exynos_dma_mask;
>>
>>         return 0;
>> }
>>
>> And in your probe after of_platform_populate, you can add
>>
>> device_for_each_child(&pdev->dev, NULL, dwc3_exynos_set_dmamask);
>>
>> Here pdev is the platform device of dwc3-exynos. By this way all the
>> children of dwc3-exynos will have dma_mask set to the required value.
>>
>
> Nice idea, thanks :-)
> hmm.. so i can patch this now, and get things working ;-)
>

If this is fine with you shall i go ahead and post a patch for the same ? ;-)


>> I'm not sure if there is any other better way to achieve the same (without
>> patching of.c ;-))
>>
>



-- 
Thanks & Regards
Vivek