From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756165Ab3GYPMi (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:12:38 -0400 Received: from mail-oa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.219.51]:40343 "EHLO mail-oa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755678Ab3GYPMg (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:12:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130725144118.GA5412@linutronix.de> References: <1374516607-2705-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1374516607-2705-7-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20130725144118.GA5412@linutronix.de> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:12:34 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] usb: musb: dsps: rename ti81xx_driver_data to am33xx_driver_data From: Bin Liu To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, balbi@ti.com, george.cherian@ti.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sebastian, On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Bin Liu | 2013-07-23 13:23:57 [-0500]: > >>Hi Sebastian, > Hi Liu, > >>On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior < >>bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote: >> >>> This patch renames the type struct from ti81xx_driver_data to >>> am33xx_driver_data since it is not used for ti81xx anymore. The EOI >>> member is also removed since the am33xx SoC does not have such register. >>> The interrupt is acknowledged by writting into the stat register. >>> >>I guess the EOI register is removed from the TRM because AM33xx does not >>use it, there is no need to write to it to acknowledge. It does not hurt to >>write to it though since the register still exists, it just does nothing, I >>guess. > > Is it really there or was it never there and it has been added to TRM by > accident? The EOI register IS in the USB subsystem of AM33xx, but the SoC does not use it because it uses level triggering for USB interrupt. > >>But I am not sure if it is a good idea to remove eoi from the musb_dsps >>driver. If the intension is to merge the support for other SoC, such as >>AM35xx, AM18xx, then EOI handling might be still needed. I just don't know >>how those devices use EOI. > > If one of the architectures gets added which need an EOI then the offset > can be 0 and the EOI will happen only if it is != 0. This patch cleaned up the use of EOI. Do you mean EOI handling will be added back with condition EOI offset != 0, when the support of new device which uses EIO is added? Regards, -Bin. > >> >>Regards, >>-Bin. > > Sebastian