Hi,
> Does it make sense to have an EHCI bus type that inherits from USBBus?
>
> That way we could change USBPortOps into methods of the USBBus that the
> subclass overrides.
I don't think this is useful. USBPortOps should be identical for both
cases.
> That would strongly decouple the EHCI
On 06/25/2012 08:28 PM, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 06/25/2012 05:02 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Hi Peter,
Am 25.06.2012 11:34, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
I have a platform (Xilinx Zynq) that has a USB EHCI controller that
attaches dir
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 05:02 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 25.06.2012 11:34, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
>>>
>>> I have a platform (Xilinx Zynq) that has a USB EHCI controller that
>>> attaches directly to the system bus and not
On 06/25/2012 05:02 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Hi Peter,
Am 25.06.2012 11:34, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
I have a platform (Xilinx Zynq) that has a USB EHCI controller that
attaches directly to the system bus and not through PCI. We are
looking for a way to disentangle EHCI from PCI - currently
Hi Peter,
Am 25.06.2012 11:34, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
> I have a platform (Xilinx Zynq) that has a USB EHCI controller that
> attaches directly to the system bus and not through PCI. We are
> looking for a way to disentangle EHCI from PCI - currently it inherits
> from TYPE_PCI_DEVICE:
>
> st
Hi All,
I have a platform (Xilinx Zynq) that has a USB EHCI controller that
attaches directly to the system bus and not through PCI. We are
looking for a way to disentangle EHCI from PCI - currently it inherits
from TYPE_PCI_DEVICE:
static TypeInfo ehci_info = {
.name = "usb-ehci",
