Hi Felipe, Glad to see you find some time for this patch set :) On 06/30/2014 07:19 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:52:34PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: >> When a 0-length packet is received on the bus, desc->pd0 yields 1, >> which confuses the driver's users. This information is clearly wrong >> and not in accordance to the datasheet, but it's been observed on an >> AM335x board, very reproducible. >> >> Fix this by looking at bit 19 in PD2 of the completed packet. This bit >> will tell us if a zero-length packet was received on a queue. If it's >> set, ignore the value in PD0 and report a total length of 0 instead. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack <zonque@xxxxxxxxx> > > Does this create dependency on the following patches ? Since they're in > the same series, I suppose it does... Please clarify so we don't cause > regressions upstream due to ordering. No, there's no dependency. I sent them in one series as they all contribute to the fact that multiple USB devices would behave incorrectly on musb. All of these patches have to be applied to fix different details, but for this particular one, the order doesn't matter. I also asked Vinod to pick this single patch for his tree, but there was no answer yet. Thanks, Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
