From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-iy0-f177.google.com ([209.85.210.177]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1SArOF-0006dG-FL for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:25:56 +0000 Received: by iaky10 with SMTP id y10so4502839iak.36 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:25:44 -0500 From: "Derald D. Woods" Message-ID: <20120322232544.GA3867@numbers.woodsts.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: i.MX21 USB OTG To: barebox@lists.infradead.org All, I have an existing design that uses the i.MX21 ARM9 processor. The design currently uses an external USB OTG chip. The chip is now end-of-life. I know that this is an older ARM processor. It still meets most of the design needs. Is the i.MX21 OTG functionality considered reliable? I have not seen any real success stories with the i.MX21 USB OTG implementation. Our board currently utilizes the USB OTG chip at the bootloader and Linux kernel level. I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction or warned of impending danger. I posted to this list because the support for i.MX2x processors is still fairly active in the Barebox community. Derald D. Woods _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox