On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 09:29:29PM +0200, Frank Schäfer wrote: > Am 13.07.2015 um 18:47 schrieb Johan Hovold: > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 06:08:50PM +0200, Michał Pecio wrote: > >>> Commit 57ce61aad748 might be helpful... ;) > >>> > >>> Good luck, > >>> Frank > >>> > >>> > >> Pretty much the same thing I have done, except that I didn't notice that > >> 0 = 512 :) > >> > >> Apparently, 57ce61aad748 fell victim of a mass-revert caused by some > >> underdebugged issues. Is it known what they were? Is there any chance > >> of getting this driver fixed again? > > Yes, that series caused some regressions late in the release cycle and > > was reverted so that it could get some more review and testing. > > It was the baud rate divisor fix patch (only) which unveiled a single > long standing bug in another part of the driver > I offered you a simple and 100% safe solution for this (not reporting > the actually set baud rate as before). Your changes caused a regression that was discovered mere days before 3.12 was released. At the time the reason had not been fully determined so the patches were consequently reverted. > > If you want to pick this up and improve the divisor calculations that'd > > be great. > > Maybe you should just start doing your job as the maintainer and accept > one of the patches people are sending to you to get this issue fixed ? I see you're still upset over this almost two years later. Patches are always welcome if you change your mind. Johan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
