From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756855AbdJLLrL (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 07:47:11 -0400 Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com ([62.209.51.94]:9399 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751907AbdJLLrJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 07:47:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] Add support for USB OTG on STM32F7 To: Felipe Balbi , Amelie DELAUNAY , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Russell King , Maxime Coquelin , John Youn CC: "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Benjamin GAIGNARD References: <1503930018-536-1-git-send-email-amelie.delaunay@st.com> <878tgim24i.fsf@linux.intel.com> <04a49088-b615-d7b8-0387-e7bfa32ee19f@st.com> <87vajllx8t.fsf@linux.intel.com> <1c4180ef-2da6-b420-7c6e-41769608384a@st.com> <87sheplsrm.fsf@linux.intel.com> <3c36db6d-75fd-1be6-e946-b75a04e3760e@st.com> <21df4d0c-075c-0c5a-c39b-b1dd94fe819d@st.com> <87efq821tz.fsf@linux.intel.com> From: Alexandre Torgue Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:46:14 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87efq821tz.fsf@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.75.127.44] X-ClientProxiedBy: SFHDAG6NODE2.st.com (10.75.127.17) To SFHDAG3NODE2.st.com (10.75.127.8) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-10-12_05:,, signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Felipe On 10/12/2017 10:43 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/11/2017 12:04 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay writes: >>>>>>>>> The STM32F7 MCU family embeds two DWC2 USB OTG cores. One core is >>>>>>>>> USB >>>>>>>>> OTG FS and the other is USB OTG HS. The USB FS core only works >>>>>>>>> with its >>>>>>>>> internal phy whilst the USB HS core can work in HS with external >>>>>>>>> ULPI phy >>>>>>>>> or in FS/LS with the on-chip FS phy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay (7): >>>>>>>>>      dt-bindings: usb: Document the STM32F7 DWC2 USB OTG HS core >>>>>>>>> binding >>>>>>>>>      usb: dwc2: add support for STM32F7 USB OTG HS >>>>>>>>>      ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have applied these three patches. Should I take the rest? They >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> like they could go upstream through the ARM maintainers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will take other DT patches in my PR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Concerning "ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU" >>>>>>> patch >>>>>>> I prefer also to take it. This patch adds some pinctrl groups but >>>>>>> stm32 >>>>>>> pinctrl bindings will change in my next PR (we will use a macro to >>>>>>> define pins instead of using defined values). So if you push the DT >>>>>>> patch through your pull request there will be a merge issue. >>>>>>> It is possible that I take also this one ? >>>>>> >>>>>> In that case, it's best if you take them all :-) Here's my Ack: >>>>>> >>>>>> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll drop them from my tree now >>>>> >>>>> Ok perfect, I will take DT patches (3 to 7) and I let you take patch 1&2 >>>>> in your tree. >>>> >>>> Well, I have dropped them from my tree. Please two 1-7 through yours. >>> >>> Hum, ok for this patchset but IMO it is better (next time) that you take >>> driver pacthes in your tree and I take only DT patches in mine. >>> No ? >>> >>> Regards >>> Alex >>> >>>> >> >> I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be >> applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be >> applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something? > > patch 1 is documentation, right? Without the documentation patch, > checkpatch will cringe :-) So either way works. > > If you insist, I can take 1-2 through my tree. No worries. I don't want to insist :) but for me it is better (and more safe) if you take patch 1&2 in your tree, and will take others in mine. Thanks in advance. Alex > > let me know > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Torgue Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] Add support for USB OTG on STM32F7 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:46:14 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1503930018-536-1-git-send-email-amelie.delaunay@st.com> <878tgim24i.fsf@linux.intel.com> <04a49088-b615-d7b8-0387-e7bfa32ee19f@st.com> <87vajllx8t.fsf@linux.intel.com> <1c4180ef-2da6-b420-7c6e-41769608384a@st.com> <87sheplsrm.fsf@linux.intel.com> <3c36db6d-75fd-1be6-e946-b75a04e3760e@st.com> <21df4d0c-075c-0c5a-c39b-b1dd94fe819d@st.com> <87efq821tz.fsf@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87efq821tz.fsf@linux.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Balbi , Amelie DELAUNAY , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Russell King , Maxime Coquelin , John Youn Cc: "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Benjamin GAIGNARD List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Felipe On 10/12/2017 10:43 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/11/2017 12:04 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay writes: >>>>>>>>> The STM32F7 MCU family embeds two DWC2 USB OTG cores. One core is >>>>>>>>> USB >>>>>>>>> OTG FS and the other is USB OTG HS. The USB FS core only works >>>>>>>>> with its >>>>>>>>> internal phy whilst the USB HS core can work in HS with external >>>>>>>>> ULPI phy >>>>>>>>> or in FS/LS with the on-chip FS phy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay (7): >>>>>>>>>      dt-bindings: usb: Document the STM32F7 DWC2 USB OTG HS core >>>>>>>>> binding >>>>>>>>>      usb: dwc2: add support for STM32F7 USB OTG HS >>>>>>>>>      ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have applied these three patches. Should I take the rest? They >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> like they could go upstream through the ARM maintainers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will take other DT patches in my PR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Concerning "ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU" >>>>>>> patch >>>>>>> I prefer also to take it. This patch adds some pinctrl groups but >>>>>>> stm32 >>>>>>> pinctrl bindings will change in my next PR (we will use a macro to >>>>>>> define pins instead of using defined values). So if you push the DT >>>>>>> patch through your pull request there will be a merge issue. >>>>>>> It is possible that I take also this one ? >>>>>> >>>>>> In that case, it's best if you take them all :-) Here's my Ack: >>>>>> >>>>>> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll drop them from my tree now >>>>> >>>>> Ok perfect, I will take DT patches (3 to 7) and I let you take patch 1&2 >>>>> in your tree. >>>> >>>> Well, I have dropped them from my tree. Please two 1-7 through yours. >>> >>> Hum, ok for this patchset but IMO it is better (next time) that you take >>> driver pacthes in your tree and I take only DT patches in mine. >>> No ? >>> >>> Regards >>> Alex >>> >>>> >> >> I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be >> applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be >> applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something? > > patch 1 is documentation, right? Without the documentation patch, > checkpatch will cringe :-) So either way works. > > If you insist, I can take 1-2 through my tree. No worries. I don't want to insist :) but for me it is better (and more safe) if you take patch 1&2 in your tree, and will take others in mine. Thanks in advance. Alex > > let me know > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.torgue@st.com (Alexandre Torgue) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:46:14 +0200 Subject: [PATCHv2 0/7] Add support for USB OTG on STM32F7 In-Reply-To: <87efq821tz.fsf@linux.intel.com> References: <1503930018-536-1-git-send-email-amelie.delaunay@st.com> <878tgim24i.fsf@linux.intel.com> <04a49088-b615-d7b8-0387-e7bfa32ee19f@st.com> <87vajllx8t.fsf@linux.intel.com> <1c4180ef-2da6-b420-7c6e-41769608384a@st.com> <87sheplsrm.fsf@linux.intel.com> <3c36db6d-75fd-1be6-e946-b75a04e3760e@st.com> <21df4d0c-075c-0c5a-c39b-b1dd94fe819d@st.com> <87efq821tz.fsf@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Felipe On 10/12/2017 10:43 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/11/2017 12:04 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay writes: >>>>>>>>> The STM32F7 MCU family embeds two DWC2 USB OTG cores. One core is >>>>>>>>> USB >>>>>>>>> OTG FS and the other is USB OTG HS. The USB FS core only works >>>>>>>>> with its >>>>>>>>> internal phy whilst the USB HS core can work in HS with external >>>>>>>>> ULPI phy >>>>>>>>> or in FS/LS with the on-chip FS phy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay (7): >>>>>>>>> ???? dt-bindings: usb: Document the STM32F7 DWC2 USB OTG HS core >>>>>>>>> binding >>>>>>>>> ???? usb: dwc2: add support for STM32F7 USB OTG HS >>>>>>>>> ???? ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have applied these three patches. Should I take the rest? They >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> like they could go upstream through the ARM maintainers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will take other DT patches in my PR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Concerning "ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU" >>>>>>> patch >>>>>>> I prefer also to take it. This patch adds some pinctrl groups but >>>>>>> stm32 >>>>>>> pinctrl bindings will change in my next PR (we will use a macro to >>>>>>> define pins instead of using defined values). So if you push the DT >>>>>>> patch through your pull request there will be a merge issue. >>>>>>> It is possible that I take also this one ? >>>>>> >>>>>> In that case, it's best if you take them all :-) Here's my Ack: >>>>>> >>>>>> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll drop them from my tree now >>>>> >>>>> Ok perfect, I will take DT patches (3 to 7) and I let you take patch 1&2 >>>>> in your tree. >>>> >>>> Well, I have dropped them from my tree. Please two 1-7 through yours. >>> >>> Hum, ok for this patchset but IMO it is better (next time) that you take >>> driver pacthes in your tree and I take only DT patches in mine. >>> No ? >>> >>> Regards >>> Alex >>> >>>> >> >> I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be >> applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be >> applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something? > > patch 1 is documentation, right? Without the documentation patch, > checkpatch will cringe :-) So either way works. > > If you insist, I can take 1-2 through my tree. No worries. I don't want to insist :) but for me it is better (and more safe) if you take patch 1&2 in your tree, and will take others in mine. Thanks in advance. Alex > > let me know >