Re: [PATCH 8/8] phy: add driver for TI TUSB1210 ULPI PHY

From: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
To: David Cohen <david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] phy: add driver for TI TUSB1210 ULPI PHY
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:57:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150127125739.GF28539@kuha.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150127092856.GD28539@kuha.fi.intel.com>

Hi guys,

> I'm only using the init and exit hooks instead of just
> power_on/power_off because I'm not sure which the controllers will
> use. For example, now dwc3 calls phy_init() in it's resume routine and
> not phy_power_on() like I would expect. I know the problem has been
> pointed out by others, so I'm expecting we'll get guidelines for it
> later. But before we do, I see no harm in having both init and
> power_on hooks in this driver.

I'm unable to find the thread where somebody mentioned that, but I
don't actually think there is any reason why we couldn't just call
phy_power_on/off instead of phy_init/exit in dwc3_suspend/resume like
I think we should. I'll add one more patch where I'll change it.

Felipe, is it OK?

Thanks,

-- 
heikki