[U-Boot] [PATCH RFC 0/2] usb: host: Add a wrapper layer for mutiple host support

[Vivek Gautam]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Marek,
>
> On 25 June 2014 02:33, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 08:27:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> [...]
>>> > > > model. Instead, I'd love to see a mean to instantiate each *HCI
>>> > > > controller and have a USB core which would track those instances. The
>>> > > > USB core would then be able to call whatever generic ops on those
>>> > > > instances as needed. Does that make sense please ?
>>> > >
>>> > > True, i understand your point here. I think the second approach i was
>>> > > talking of, goes in this direction.
>>> > > I think i could not put it well in words there.
>>> > >
>>> > > I will prepare an RFC patch for that, and post it as soon as its
>>> > > ready, so that you can have
>>> > > a look.
>>> >
>>> > Ah, this would be so very appreciated! Thank you!
>>>
>>> Should we consider just going straight for driver model?
>>
>> I was thinking about that, but I'm worried it might break USB support on some
>> platforms. Also, the size of U-Boot will grow on many platforms, right?
>>
>> What do you think ?
>
> If you add CONFIG_DM_USB as an option, you can then pull in either
> usb-uclass.c or the old usb code. Since USB is often tied to a board
> then you can move just that board (or group of boards) to dm.
>
> I am keeping a working tree in u-boot-dm.git which does this for
> serial, SPI, SPI flash and GPIO. It seems to work fairly well as a
> technique for keeping both things in the tree in the interim..
>
> As to the size increase, yes it will increase the size, but not that
> much, and after all, aren't we trying to move the code to dm?
>
> Regards,
> Simon
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot



-- 
Best Regards
Vivek Gautam
Samsung R&D Institute, Bangalore
India