[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 24/25] MIPS: Alchemy: use the OHCI platform driver

To: Florian Fainelli <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/25] MIPS: Alchemy: use the OHCI platform driver
From: Manuel Lauss <>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 17:26:52 +0200
Cc:,, Ralf Baechle <>, Manuel Lauss <>, Thomas Meyer <>, "David S. Miller" <>,,
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=kkaD6PuS2lnJhb6TdMJXM+VW+vZ5nK2zSpmwm7dkAaE=; b=0HRxO3d/8pDYEjfBSl8DybVZg01hjPLxqeCO9D9Fs82wZiluHwPYxgMKNqDq+lpIkS AvxMnmhk0IEs4z55XYaAbe/CooeZBvjU1ZG0v8goKSSDcnLK/FS6QlRvinsEkboEkbx9 jAgh0sj1y3f5Z/3GAKz0S7B5d9jR28MU6IcTKHmy6LBg4gzkrwz8Zeh45qjbmfuw16c8 PDNLFa5JfohiBomIlrHu9Q5HtRGTP6uKy1eCuid9KlJR3He0hPiQ0ufMtspZ18lGFj1W +9AQhXZcHVkzYxVv2UchNCXaoreK3b8L3p1Pep1yDf3y+fltu8SxLGvNa+9BFpmTQ8ZY FWcw==
In-reply-to: <2608261.j829MQZAuC@flexo>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
References: <> <> <> <2608261.j829MQZAuC@flexo>
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Florian Fainelli <> wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 October 2012 17:21:37 Manuel Lauss wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Florian Fainelli <> wrote:
>> > This also greatly simplifies the power_{on,off} callbacks and make them
>> > work on platform device id instead of checking the OHCI controller base
>> > address like what was done in ohci-au1xxx.c.
>> That was by design -- the base address is far more reliable in identifying
> the
>> correct controller instance than the platform device id.   There are systems
>> in the field which don't use the alchemy/common/platform.c file at all.
> Fair enough, but the way it was done previously was very error-prone if the
> base address changed for any reason in the platform code, and you did not
> notice it had to be changed in the OHCI driver too, then it simply did not

Since the Alchemy line is dead this point is moot.

> work. By systems in the field you mean out of tree users? If so, I'd say that
> it's up to you to get them maintained or merged.

I'm not against the patch at all, quite the contrary.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>