On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 04:49:41PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:13:53AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+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.

Andrew,

Did I miss the update of this series/patch?

thx,

Jason.