Hi, On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:13:38AM +0800, Wang, Yu wrote: > >> >how did you test it ? According to [1] Merrifield won't work for more > >> >than 20s or so with v3.14 and, since there is no resolution on the > >> >thread, I assume today's mainline won't work either. > >> > > >> >Anyway, if you really did test, test again with enabling verbose debug > >> >on dwc3 and show me the logs, I'm interested in what the IP is doing. > >> > >> Yes. As you said, the v3.14 haven't get stable so far on Merrifield > >> platform. So I tried to back port your dwc3-role-switch branch solution > >> to our v3.10 base and verified. > > > >That's no the same. What if you missed something ? What if it didn't > >work because you broke it while backporting ? I don't know that because > >you never showed me your backported version, also did you test on v3.10 > >vanilla or v3.10 + Intel's patches + dwc3-role-switch backport ? > > Yes. That is why I will try v3.14 original dwc3-role-switch code to > double confirm. You can ignore this result first. I will share the v3.14 > result to you after the stability issue fixed. ok, I heard reports of a few hundred IRQs firing when removing cable... I don't remember seeing any of that on OMAP5, I'll see if I can time to test it again and, hopefully, make this solid to be merged on v3.16. > >> I will waiting v3.14 get ready and do the test again to double confirm. > >> I will let you know the result. Sorry cause the misunderstanding for > >> you. > > > >ok, just next time make sure to be extra clear about your setup. If I > >didn't have reports from one of your colleagues that the patches were > >working, I could've spent time debugging something that doesn't exist. > > Understood. Sorry for the mistake made by the new comer. I will provide > the result with extra clear environment for you in the future. thanks -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
